Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o' Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

FELIXSTOWE PIER BILL

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL

LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — LITIGATION COSTS (INQUIRY)

Mr. Rees-Williams: asked the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the Government's proposals to reduce the cost of litigation.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): My noble Friend, the Lord Chancellor, has recently appointed two Committees. One of them, presided over by Lord Justice Evershed, is inquiring into the present practice and procedure of the Supreme Court (excluding the practice and procedure in actions for the infringement of patents and in matrimonial proceedings in the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division of the High Court), and considering what reforms should be introduced so as to reduce the cost of litigation, and secure greater efficiency and expedition in the despatch of business; the other Committee, presided over by Mr. Justice Austin Jones is undertaking a similar task with regard to the county courts I am circulating in the

OFFICIAL REPORT the terms of reference and membership of both Committees.

Mr. Rees-Williams: While I thank the Attorney-General for that reply, and for the action he has taken, may I ask him to bear in mind that at the present moment there is a denial of justice in many cases, and, therefore always to remember the urgency of this matter?

The Attorney-General: Yes, Sir, that will certainly be looked at.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Arising out of the reply, will my right hon. and learned Friend say whether the Committee are inquiring into and dealing with the cost of the jury system, and the differentiation between special and common juries?

The Attorney-General: I have already announced in this House the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to the differentiation between special and common juries. Other aspects of the case of trial by jury may, no doubt, be within the purview of the Committee.

Following is the information:

Oral Answers to Questions — SUPREME COURT COMMITTEE ON PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Terms of Reference

1. To inquire into the present practice and procedure of the Supreme Court (excluding the practice and procedure in actions for the infringement of patents and under the Patents and Designs Acts, 1907 to 1946, and in matrimonial proceedings in the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division of the High Court, but including the practice and procedure on appeals from that Division), and to consider what reforms of such practice and procedure should now be introduced, whether by legislation or otherwise, for the purposes of reducing the cost of litigation and securing greater efficiency and expedition in the despatch of business.

2. To consider the Reports made by the Hanworth Committee on the business of the Courts (Cmds. 4265, 4471 and 5066) and the Report of the Royal Commission on the Despatch of Business at Common Law, 1934–6 (Cmd. 5065), and, for the purposes set out in the foregoing paragraph, to make recommendations generally on the proposals contained in those Reports.

3. To consider, for the purposes aforesaid, whether any and if so what, modifications should now be made in the present rights of appeal to, from or within the Supreme Court, other than appeals in matrimonial proceedings from courts of summary jurisdiction.

4. To consider what appropriate machinery might be evolved to enable cases involving points of law of exceptional public interest (arising in any Division of the High Court or in the Court of Appeal) to be determined


wholly or partly at the public expense, whether by making the Attorney-General or the King's Proctor a party to litigation or otherwise.

5. To make interim reports on any matter or matters arising out of their terms of reference as may from time to time appear to the Committee to merit immediate attention or to warrant separate treatment.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMBERS

The Right Hon. Lord Justice Evershed (Chairman), Lord Justice of Appeal.
The Hon. Mr. Justice Lynskey, Judge of the King's Bench Division.
The Hon. Mr. Justice Wilmer, O.B.E., Judge of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division.
Sir Thomas Barnes, K.C.B., C.B.E., Treasury Solicitor and King's Proctor.
George Coldstream, Assistant Secretary to the Lord Chancellor and Deputy Clerk of the Crown.
Geoffrey Crowther, Editor of the Economist, Arthur J. Driver, Solicitor.
C. N. Gallie, Secretary, Railway Clerks' Association.
Gerald A. Gardiner, Barrister-at-law.
C. J. Geddes, Secretary, Union of Post Office Workers.
Sir Douglas Gibbon, M.C., Chief Master, Taxing Office.
Professor Arthur L Goodhart, D.C.L., K.C., Editor, The Law Quarterly Review, Professor of Jurisprudence, Oxford.
Sir Arnold Gridley, K.B.E., M.P., President of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce. M P. (Con.) for Stockport.
J. C. Hanbury-Williams, Chairman, Courtaulds, Ltd.
Alan Herbert, M.P., Author and Barrister; M.P. (Ind.) for Oxford University.
Professor T. H Marshall, C.M.G., Professor of Social Institutions. London School of Economics Master Moseley, King's Bench Master.
Giles F. Newton, M.B.E., Director, Cape Asbestos, Ltd. Member London Chamber of Commerce.
W. C. Norton, M.B.E., M.C., Solicitor. Gerald R. Upjohn, C.B.E., K.C., King's Counsel.
W. T Wells, Esq., M.P., Barrister-at-law; M.P. (Lab.) for Walsall.
R. E Yeabsley, C.B.E., Chartered Accountant.
Master Willmott, M.C., Chancery Master.
The Hon Kenneth Younger, M.P., Barister-at-law; M P (Lab.) for Grimsby.

Oral Answers to Questions — COUNTY COURT COMMITTEE

Terms of Reference
To inquire into the present practice and procedure of the county court, and to consider what reforms might be introduced with a view to reducing the cost of litigation and for securing greater efficiency in the despatch of business.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMBERS

Mr. Justice Austin Jones, M.C., Judge of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division: a former County Court Judge.
Judge David Davies, K.C., Judge of Bloomsbury County Court.

Judge Alan Pugh, Judge of Bow and Chesham County Courts.
G. Corbyn Barrow, Partner of Wragge &amp; Co., Solicitors, Birmingham; Member of the Council of the Law Society.
George Coldstream, Assistant Secretary to the Lord Chancellor and Deputy Clerk of the Crown.
J. S. Dodd, Engineer; Director, Lyon Works, Oldham; formerly Member of Parliament.
S. L. Elborne, M.B.E., Barrister-at-law.
Stuart Evans, Partner of Burges, Salmon &amp; Co., Solicitors, Bristol.
Luke Fawcett, General Secretary, Amalgamated Union of Building Trade Workers.
Leslie Hale, M.P., Member of Parliament for Oldham (Lab.); Solicitor.
G. E. Haynes, C.B.E., Secretary, National Council of Social Service.
Gilbert Hicks, C.B.E., Registrar, Shoreditch County Court.
E. Milner Holland, C.B.E., Barrister-at-law. Christopher Hollis, M.P., Member of Parliament for Devizes (Con.).
C. W. Marshall, Registrar, Ipswich County Court.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Hosiery Exports

Mr. Spence: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make arrangements to allow a larger proportion of high-class hosiery to be exported, especially to dollar exchange countries.

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Stafford Cripps): The amount of hosiery which can be exported is limited only by the necessity of honouring the clothing ration at home, and of an adequate production of Utility goods. Subject to this, every effort is made to assist manufacturers of high-class hosiery who wish to export, especially to hard currency markets.

Mr. Spence: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman considered the possibility of getting a proportion of our utility requirements made by producers in ex-enemy countries, thereby freeing more of our home production for the export market?

Sir S. Cripps: That matter has been considered, and, as the hon. Member knows, we are getting some hosiery imported into this country.

Mr. Osborne: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman encourage British exporters only to send high-grade goods to the United States, where they enjoy a good reputation, and not allow cheap goods to he sent out there?

Sir S. Cripps: We want high-quality goods sent everywhere.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: is it not time the Government exported some of the utility goods and kept some of the better things here?

Sir S. Cripps: I think it is better to keep the utility goods which are wanted by the mass of the population, rather than the luxury goods required for export.

Clothing Coupons

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether European volunteer workers may be allowed in necessitous cases to anticipate their entitlement of clothing coupons provided that the total due to them over a period is not exceeded.

Sir S. Cripps: European volunteer workers on arrival in this country are issued with the ordinary civilian clothing ration. Thus, those now arriving are given 21 coupons to cover the remainder of the present ration period up to 31st October next. In addition, under a special arrangement for which my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Labour, is responsible, these workers, if inadequately clothed for employment here, are issued, without the surrender of coupons, with certain additional items of clothing drawn mainly from Government surplus stocks. These arrangements are, I believe, adequate to meet the needs of the situation.

Mr. John Lewis: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is yet in a position to say when 26 clothing coupons will be issued to those demobilised 'after the end of 1945.

Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir. Those demobilised between 1st January, 1946, and 30th June, 1946, inclusive will be able to obtain their coupons through the food offices in November. Precise details will be given in the Press nearer the time of issue. I am not yet in a position to say when those demobilised later will be given coupons.

Mr. J. Lewis: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can yet make a statement on the children's additional supplements.

Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir. As I have already announced, the Children's Ten will become available on 1st August. I propose to maintain the children's addi-

tional supplements at last year's level and to make them available as from 1st September through the food offices. Children, therefore, aged between approximately 10½ and 16 on 1st August will be entitled to an extra 20 coupons and those over 16 and under 18 to an extra 10 coupons. Children under 10½ will be able to qualify for the extra 20 coupons if because of height, weight or size of foot they require adult sizes.

Household Salvage Collection

Sir Robert Young: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that many householders now regard the collection of waste materials for salvage collection as unnecessary seeing such collections, if made, are at irregular and unknown periods, and if he will say what, in addition to waste paper and rags, should be retained for salvage collection.

Sir S. Cripps: I cannot too strongly emphasise the importance of improving collections of household salvage and I hope that householders will do their best to keep waste materials separate and local authorities will ensure as far as possible regular collections. In addition to waste paper and rags, kitchen waste should be saved in those areas where collection facilities are provided. Bottles, jars and bones are also important. This is very much a matter for local action, and it would be of very great help if hon. Members on both sides of the House would do all they can to revive local interest in this highly important subject when in their constituencies.

Sir R. Young: Will my right hon. and learned Friend do something to get local authorities to make periodic visits at definite times?

Sir S. Cripps: All local authorities have been circularised by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, myself and others in order to try to stimulate them to carry that out.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that the Housewives' League is making a collection of waste paper and proposing to dump it in this House? Will he see that it is duly disposed of?

Mr. Molson: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what articles are compulsorily salvaged under Defence Regulations at the present time, and


which no longer are so? Is it the case that bottles do not have to be salvaged?

Sir S. Cripps: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question on the Paper, and I will give him an accurate answer.

West African Timber (Exporters' Prices)

Mr. Keeling: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the price paid to exporters of timber from West Africa to this country is the same as that paid to them for exports to the U.S.A.

Sir S. Cripps: As exports of timber from West Africa to the United States are the subject of private contracts, I have no information as to the prices paid to the exporters under those arrangements.

Fishing Equipment Supplies, Cornwall

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that there is a shortage of No. 5 ringed hooks in Looe, Cornwall; that cotton for long lining is in short supply and if he will take immediate action to rectify this position which is hindering the supply of food to the United Kingdom.

Sir S. Cripps: The present scarcity of No. 5 hooks is due to the general shortage of steel. I understand that cotton for long lining is not generally in short supply, but I am having inquiries made into the position at Looe and will write to the hon. Member.

Mr. Marshall: is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that apart from the shortage of cotton, and apart from the shortage of No. 5 hooks, of which I have given him the correspondence, sisal for ropes is also in very short supply?

Sir S. Cripps: I will have the matter looked into.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

Domestic Coke Allocations

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware that the coke allocation to houses and blocks of flats for heating water is being considerably reduced for both the summer and winter months which means that tenants will only have hot water for a few days in every week; and whether, in view of

the increased consumption of gas and electricity which will result, especially in families where there are young children, he will reconsider the present decision.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell): So far as ordinary domestic premises in general are concerned, the position is that the maximum permitted supply of coke for 12 months has been reduced from 40 cwt. to 35 cwt. The reasons for this were explained by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in the Debate on the Adjournment on domestic boiler fuel on 23rd May. Actual deliveries are subject to the supplies being available. With regard to larger premises whose supplies are dealt with by licence from local fuel overseers or by individual programme, the position is under review.

Coal Supplies (Quality)

Mr. Shurmer: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power, if he is aware that supplies of opencast coal coming into Birmingham from Derby and Nottingham areas are of poor quality and merchants are very much concerned; and if he will make inquiries into the matter with a view to some improvement in quality.

Mr. Shinwell: I have already had inquiries made into this matter, and find that while some of the coal is only discoloured and is quite a good domestic fuel, coal from one site contained a proportion of material which should have been extracted at the screens, but which it was not easy to distinguish from coal. Instructions have been given that the portion of the seam containing this material will be discarded.

Mr. Shurmer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a widespread complaint in the city of Birmingham? In fact, I can give the Minister quite a lot of facts out of my cellar if he wants them. As there is a need to stock coal, people will be getting a much smaller quantity in Birmingham, where merchants are disgusted at having to supply such coal.

Mr. Shinwell: These are sweeping assertions. I am not prepared to accept all the implications of what my hon. Friend says. This is an isolated instance—[HON. MEMBERS: "No.]—I say that this is an isolated instance—[HON. MEMBERS: No."] If my hon. Friend or any other Member can produce evidence of this being of a general character, I will certainly make inquiries.

Mr. Shurmer: I will make every endeavour to get bags of it from my constituency.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Will the Minister consider the advisability of speaking to the National Coal Board about charging top price for coal which is admittedly of low quality?

Mr. Shinwell: Certainly, if the hon. and gallant Member can produce evidence of that: I have no desire that an unwholesome practice should be continued.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Can the Minister say on whom the loss falls? Does it fall on the consumer or the coal merchants?

Mr. Shinwell: I imagine that if the consumer is not being provided with coal at the right price the loss would be sustained by the consumer.

Sir W. Smithers: Charge it to Lord Hyndley.

Mr. D. Marshall: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware that the Wadebridge Rural District Council express anxiety with regard to the poor quality of coal being supplied to this area; and if he will take immediate action to ensure that at least one cwt. per week of better quality coal is made available for these rural areas.

Mr. Shinwell: There is no evidence to suggest that there has been any abnormal deterioration in the quality of coal supplies to the Wadebridge area. As regards the second part of the Question, special attention will continue to be paid to the needs of rural areas, and the National Coal Board have already taken certain measures to ensure that the quality of coal generally is maintained at as high a level as practicable.

Mr. Marshall: I will send the Minister the evidence that coal being supplied in the rural district of Wadebridge and also in the vicinity of Polruan is extremely bad. In due course he will receive that evidence.

Mr. Shinwell: It is certainly true that there has been some trouble in this area, but it is partly due to the fact that most of the coal supplied is seaborne, and is, therefore, subject to more breakage, in addition to which a great deal of the coal which has been supplied has been ex-

tracted from stock which has been lying for some time.

Mr. Molson: In view of the answer which the Minister has just given, why did he say in reply to the previous Question that it was an isolated case?

Mr. Shinwell: Because my hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer) was referring to Birmingham, and not to Wadebridge.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Marshall: Is the Minister aware that in a number of these rural cases there is no alternative method of cooking, and that wood has to be bought in order to make the coal burn.

Mr. Shinwell: That question appears to refer to the quantity of coal, whereas the original Question referred to quality. The National Coal Board and the Ministry of Fuel and Power are aware of the difficulty about quality, which is partly due to the difficulties arising from the absence of washing and screening facilities attributable in some measure to the war.

Ex-Service Mineworker (Training Requirement)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power why a miner, particulars of whose case have been sent to him, of 12 years' experience, taken into the Army in 1939 was, on his return after 6½ years' service, refused work in the mines unless he first did a course of training.

Mr. Shinwell: There would, in general, be no necessity for a man with the previous mine experience stated to undergo preliminary training on re-engagement. If the hon. Member will supply me with the name and address of the person concerned, I shall be glad to ask the National Coal Board to look into the matter.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the Minister aware that, so far as I know, he has already had the information sent to him, and that absurd regulations of this kind take away a man's freedom of action and hold up the production of coal which is so urgently needed?

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Member says that so far as he knows I have had the information, but so far as I know, I have not.

MOTOR TYRES (PERMIT APPLICATION)

Mr. David Renton: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware that Mr. V. C. Brains has been granted 57 supplementary U petrol coupon units for the period May to August inclusive, but that he has been refused a permit by the petroleum officer at Cambridge to purchase a set of tyres for his car, which is used for business purposes, to replace his present tyres which are worn out; and whether he will explain the petroleum officer's refusal of such permit.

Mr. Shinwell: The regional petroleum officer was unable to grant Mr. V. C. Brains a permit to purchase new motor car tyres since these are only to be issued to recipients of "E" petrol coupons except in certain cases of serious physical disability. Mr. Brains' business is of a type for which "S" petrol coupons are issued. There are no petrol coupon units marked "U."

Mr. Renton: Will the Minister explain what is the use of supplying any additional petrol coupons for a car which has not the tyres on which to run?

Mr. Shinwell: I can only say that we supply the petrol coupons and the petrol, but we do not supply the tyres. That is not our business.

OIL FUEL (DOMESTIC HEATING)

Mr. Spence: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will encourage the use of oil fuel for domestic heating purposes in private establishments, hotels, etc.; and whether such installations can be assured of reasonable supplies.

Mr. Shinwell: No, Sir. I am not prepared at this stage to encourage the wider use of oil fuel for domestic heating in private establishments, hotels, etc. As I said on 24th April in answer to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Swingler), schemes of coal/oil conversion already approved will account by the middle of 1948 for an annual coal saving of eight million tons. The practicability and desirability of going further is obviously a matter for the most careful consideration, and I am not yet ready to say if we shall require to do so.

Mr. Spence: Will the Minister make an announcement on this matter fairly soon, because a number of people wishing to help in saving coal are considering introducing these installations, if it is to be in the national interest?

Mr. Shinwell: As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, we have already made announcements on this subject. We have advised the industrialists who wish to use oil fuel and we are contemplating making another announcement very soon.

NEW WIRELESS STRUCTURES (AMENITIES)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new wireless communications for the police or the fire service are proposed; to what extent the erection of buildings and tall masts on high ground throughout the country will be necessary; and what steps he is taking to protect the landscape and other amenities.,

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): Although the wireless schemes at present contemplated will entail the provision by the local police authority of two aerial masts, and a small building at each transmitting station, it will, I hope, only be in very rare cases that any difficulty will be experienced in reconciling technical requirements with aesthetic considerations. In any such cases I am sure that the responsible police authority, in consultation with my Department and the planning authority, will take all possible steps to avoid interference with amenities and to meet any reasonable requests by national or local bodies interested therein.

Mr. Keeling: Will the Home Secretary give instructions that amenities' societies are to he consulted?

Mr. Ede: In the answer I have given, I have expressed some views on that subject, and I will see that police authorities have the desirability 'of considering the views of amenities societies brought to their notice.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his duty to protect the public from crime is paramount, and that it will have the support of all right-minded citizens?

Mr. Ede: One of the crimes that I am particularly anxious to prevent is the desecration of beauty spots.

FIRE PREVENTION, ROXTON

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, as a safeguard against a repetition of the recent disastrous fire in Roxton, Bedfordshire, he will arrange for a trailer pump and hose to be made available for this village.

Mr. Ede: I am having this suggestion investigated and will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH

Water Supply (Approved Schemes)

Mr. Heathcoat Amory: asked the Minister of Health what steps are being taken to speed up the carrying out of water supply schemes already approved; and where progress is hampered by lack of materials, what is being done to increase supplies.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): Every effort is being made by the Government to increase the overall supply of essential materials upon which the progress of water schemes depends, but the position is such that progress must for the time being be confined to those schemes or parts of schemes which are vitally urgent.

Mr. Amory: Will the right hon. Gentleman make sure that a generous allocation of the supplies available will be granted to water schemes in rural areas?

Mr. Bevan: Water schemes in rural areas have priority for the supply of available material, but we really are dreadfully short of iron and steel for these schemes. Schemes already approved this year will not be carried out unless we can have additional allocations.

Smallpox

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Health the number of smallpox cases in each of the weeks from 1st March until the latest available date; and if he is satisfied with the efforts being made to localise the outbreaks reported.

Mr. Bevan: The numbers of smallpox cases recorded in my Department for the 13 weeks from 1st March to 31st May, omitting the weeks ending 15th March and loth April in which there were none, were respectively 3, 3, 2, 3, 8, 1, 3, 4, 10, 2 and 6. The answer to the last part of the Question is, "Yes, Sir."

Medical Certificates

Mr. John Morrison: asked the Minister of Health if he will give a list of all the certificates required by Government Departments which a doctor may be called upon to sign on behalf of a patient.

Mr. Bevan: As the answer is rather detailed I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Morrison: Will the right hon. Gentleman do all he can to save doctors from these duties?

Mr. Bevan: I admit at once that members of the medical profession are called upon to provide a very large number of certificates and it adds very much to their work. I am very anxious to try to reduce it as much as possible.

Following is the answer:
According to my present information, medical certificates may have to be produced by patients (or their personal representatives) to Government Departments under the following enactments or for the following purposes. This list is not necessarily exhaustive.

1. Under the Births and Deaths Registration Acts,. 1836–1926, e.g. to certify cause of death to the Registrar.
2. To assist in determining a claim to war pension or allowance.
3. Under the Lunacy and Mental Treatment Acts and the Mental Deficiency Acts.
4. In support of claims to benefit under the National Health Insurance Act, 1936, and the Contributory Pensions Acts, 1936–41.
5. In support of sick absence by a Government Department as employer.
6. Under the Blind Persons Acts, 1920 to 1938, to support an application for old age pension at 50.
7. Under the Essential Work Orders, Control of Employment (Directed Persons) Order, 1943, and Control of Engagement Orders in support of a claim to leave or change the employment.
8. Under the Road Haulage Wages Act, 1938, the Catering Wages Act, 1943, and the Wages Councils Act, 1945, in support of a permit to be employed at sub-standard wage-rates.


9. Under the Coal Distribution Order, 1943, and the Control of Fuel (Restriction of Heating) Order, 1947, to obtain additional supplies of fuel and exemption from heating restrictions.
10. Under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944, for registration.
11. Under the Corsets (Manufacture and Supply) (No. 14) Directions, 1946, to assist in obtaining surgical corsets.
12. Under the Welfare Foods Order, 1946, to enable expectant mothers to obtain food benefit.
13. Under the Rationing Orders or otherwise to enable invalids to obtain special authority for supplementary rationed food and to assist invalids, expectant mothers and others to obtain special treatment with regard to goods which are the subject of Government control.
14. Under the Control of Motor Fuel Orders to assist claimants for additional petrol allowances on medical grounds.
15. Under the National Service Acts, 1939–1947, in support of a claim for exemption from, and to justify failure to comply with, provisions of the Acts.
16. Under the Cremation Act.

EDUCATION OFFICE, PURLEY (BUILDING MATERIALS)

Mr. Sidney Marshall: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the failure of his Department to allow the necessary materials after the priority certificates have been furnished for the alterations and repairs to Manor House, Purley, for divisional education offices to be carried out, is seriously affecting the proper administration of education in that part of Surrey; and if he will give directions for the materials to be supplied.

Mr. Bevan: The priority certificates and timber licence necessary for the building materials have now been issued to the county council.

Mr. Marshall: Does the Minister appreciate that very frequent delays occur between the approval of a scheme by the Ministry of Education and the receipt of licences from his Ministry? In nearly all cases the alterations are comparatively small, but the delay discourages local education authorities in carrying out their work.

Mr. Bevan: It very often happens that the reason for the delay is not by any means administrative. It is no use issuing a certificate if the materials are not there. I have to be quite sure that if a certificate

is issued those receiving the certificate will have it honoured by the provision of building materials.

Mr. Marshall: We often have the assurance that we can have the materials.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member may have the assurance, but my information is slightly more reliable than his.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

New Council Houses, Kedington

Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton: asked the Minister of Health, in regard to the selection of a site for new council houses in Kedington village, at what date was the site selected; and when the Kedington Parish Council was consulted or given an opportunity of making comments or suggestions.

Mr. Bevan: I understand that the Council's decision to purchase this site was made on 12th May, 1944, and that there was no formal consultation with the Kedington Parish Council.

Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that great concern was caused to the inhabitants of Kedington village when they discovered that this decision had been made some two years previously without their knowledge, especially as they preferred other sites; and, although there is no legal obligation on district councils to consult parish councils in such matters, does not the Minister consider that in the interests of local democracy it is highly desirable that they should make that a practice?

Mr. Bevan: Parish councils are usually aware of what sites are proposed to be acquired and what sites are not to be acquired in their parishes. In this case the negotiations with the landowner ran for a period of two years and I would be really astonished to learn that negotiations over so long a period of time were not made known to the parish council.

Labour Force (Housing Returns)

Mr. Marples: asked the Minister of Health why the table showing the size and distribution of labour force has not been included in the Housing Return for England and Wales, 31st March, 1947.

Mr. Bevan: I would refer the hon. Member to the notes on pages 9 and 8 of the Housing Returns for March and April, respectively.

Aluminium Houses

Mr. D. J. Williams: asked the Minister of Health if it is proposed to proceed with the production of aluminium two-storey houses; and to what extent.

Mr. Bevan: Until I have further information on the technical merits of the prototypes, and the probable costs, it is premature to consider production..

Building Contracts Beckenham

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Health if he has considered a letter, dated 29th May, sent to him by the borough of Beckenham; and, in view of the urgent necessity for housing accommodation in that area, if he will accede to their request and revoke the suspension to issue licences for the erection of new houses by private enterprise.

Mr. Bevan: I have considered the letter There is no reason why building contractors in Beckenham should not be fully employed under such arrangements as are suggested in Circular 92/46 in the building of houses for the local authority.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the Minister aware that local authorities are hampered by continual instructions from his Ministry, and that if he wants to get houses he must stop this flow of his political venom?

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member evidently does not realise that the purpose of the circular, which was issued last year and under which large numbers of houses are now being built by small builders for local authorities, was to get small builders out of their difficulties and not to obstruct them. If they were obstructed, it is because of the activities of the local authority the hon. Member represents.

Houses for Sale

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: asked the Minister of Health whether in connection with the issue of licences for houses for sale he will again call the attention of local authorities to the requirements that a deduction should be made from the amount of the authorised maximum sell-

ing price where street works are subsequently to be carried out.

Mr. Bevan: The attention of local authorities was again drawn to this requirement in a circular issued on 20th January of this year.

Mr. Chamberlain: Since this is a most important safeguard, will my right hon. Friend look into cases which I can give him where local authorities have not done this?

Mr. Bevan: I will, indeed. I hope that this Question and answer will call further attention to the matter.

Mr. Sparks: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the anomolous position which exists in regard to houses for sale on a cost-of-works basis upon which there is no maximum selling price, and does he not think that if it is necessary in one case to impose a maximum selling price, the same principle should apply?

Mr. Bevan: That is an entirely different issue.

Building Costs (Review)

Mr. Bing: asked the Minister of Health what further steps he proposes to take to review the cost of house building.

Mr. Bevan: I shall continue to exercise the closest control over the cost of house building by local authorities. In addition, I have appointed an independent Committee whose terms of reference are:
to consider and keep under review the costs of house building and to make recommendations.
The Chairman will be John Girdwood, Esq., C.B.E., and the members will be: D. N. Chester, Esq., C. H. James, Esq., A.R.A., F.R.I.B.A., W. K. M. Slimmings, Esq., D. H. Daines, Esq. The Secretary of the Committee is Mr. E. J. S. Clarke, of the Ministry of Health.

Mr. Bing: Can the Minister give the House an assurance that this Committee will investigate not only the cost of traditional houses, but also the cost of the houses built in conjunction with the Iron and Steel Federation?

Mr. Bevan: It will investigate the cost of all houses.

Mr. George Hicks: Will the Minister give us the terms of reference of this committee?

Mr. Bevan: I said that they were;
to consider and keep under review the costs of house building and to make recommendations.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

School Meals

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Minister of Education whether he can yet state when the free midday meal for all schoolchildren will be operative.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Tomlinson): No, Sir. The developments and improvements required to provide adequate facilities for free school dinners are still extensive. The work bears a high priority, but I cannot yet estimate how long it will take.

Mrs. Braddock: Can the Minister say whether there is any possibility of these facilities being ready before next winter starts?

Mr. Tomlinson: No, I do not think so.

SOUTH AFRICA (COAL EXPORTS TO U.K.)

Major Peter Roberts: asked the Prime Minister whether he will institute immediate negotiations with the Government of South Africa for the supply to Great Britain of 2,500,000 tons of coal within the next 12 months and the export from this country of 1,000 railway wagons to that Dominion.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The amount of coal exported from South Africa in 1946 was about four million tons. A considerable proportion of this was made available to British users outside the United Kingdom. The possibility of increasing exports at present is at our request being considered by the Union authorities. It is, however, clear from a recent ministerial statement in South Africa that an increase of the order suggested by the hon. and gallant Member would not be feasible. As regards railway wagons for South Africa, an order for 1,200 was recently placed in this country, but delivery will not be possible for some time. From the South African statement to which I have referred, it appears that the provision of these extra wagons would not, of itself, appreciably increase the amount of coal available for export from South Africa.

Major Roberts: May I ask the Prime Minister, first of all, whether any communications have passed between his Government and the High Commissioner for South Africa in this country, because, when the Question was put down, no such communication had been made? Is he further aware that the High Commissioner is anxious to try and produce this amount of 2,500,000 tons of coal, and that my information is that, if the extra wagons were available, the extra coal would be possible for this country?

The Prime Minister: As a matter of fact, I discussed this matter very fully myself with Mr. Waterson when he was over here, and I have gone into the question of what coal can be made available. With regard to wagons, the point was raised, but, as a matter of fact, the order for wagons had been placed only a short time ago. Therefore, we cannot expect these wagons to be produced in about three weeks.

Major Roberts: But is the Prime Minister aware that we are urgently in need of this coal, and that, unless this extra coal comes by October, the shortage will be very great? May I press the Prime Minister to reconsider the matter, because I am certain that the High Commissioner for South Africa has had more recent information since the conversation with Mr. Water-son, and could give the Prime Minister further information?

The Prime Minister: I am quite prepared to receive any further information. We have been in close touch with the High Commissioner, and, really, I do not know on what grounds the hon. and gallant Member suggests that it is possible to get this coal earlier. I know that the South African authorities are doing all in their power, and they do not suggest that it is possible on anything like the scale suggested by the hon. and gallant Member.

REQUISITIONED PROPERTY (RELEASE)

Mr. Janner: asked the Prime Minister if he has considered the Report on the release of requisitioned property issued by the Select Committee on Estimates; if he proposes to implement the committee's conclusion that the housing of the population should be given priority over all other purposes; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: His Majesty's Government are considering the Report from the Select Committee on Estimates on the release of requisitioned property, which makes a valuable contribution to the study of these difficult problems. The usual practice is for a reply to be sent to, and published by, the Select Committee, and this will be done as soon as possible.

MENTION IN DESPATCHES (EMBLEMS)

Mr. William Teeling: asked the Prime Minister why the rules about the wearing of emblems denoting Mention in Despatches, published in paragraph 11 of the White Paper, Cmd. 7035, make no provision for Mention in Despatches for services during the South African War; and about how many people are thus affected.

The Prime Minister: An emblem was instituted to denote the award of a Mention in Despatches in the First World War, and a similar emblem was created during the recent war. The rules in paragraph 11 of the White Paper, Cmd. 7035, extend this arrangement to operations in the intervening years, after the grant of an emblem had become to some extent a recognised principle. No emblem for Mentions in Despatches was in existence before the First World War, and it is not proposed to take any retrospective action to alter that state of affairs. I have no information showing how many people would be affected by such retrospective action in relation to campaigns before August, 1914.

Mr. Teeling: Does the Prime Minister realise that there are a large number of people, who would not be much more than 66 years of age at the present time, who did very good service in earlier days, and who feel that if this privilege concerning Mention in Despatches is accorded those who served in the later wars, there is no reason why they should not he allowed the same right?

The Prime Minister: I think it is rather undesirable to have retrospective legislation carrying us back a very long way, and I really do not see why I should necessarily pick out the survivors in a matter of this kind. I think it would probably be much better to go on a general basis.

Mr. Teeling: Does not the Prime Minister appreciate that these elderly people—may be, it is their weakness—are quite proud of what they did in that war? Is there any reason why they should not be allowed this privilege?

The Prime Minister: After all, I think the honour is the Mention in Despatches and not the emblem. I believe it is a mistake to go back on these things.

COALMINING BALLOTEE, ROSSINGTON COLLIERY

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Labour the circumstances in which Mr. Albert Jones, a ballotee for service in the mines, ceased to be so employed at Rossington Colliery, Doncaster.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): Mr. Jones was a coalmining ballotee employed at the Rossington Colliery, near Doncaster. In November, 1946, a strike was threatened if Mr. Jones and three other non-union workers at the Colliery were continued in employment. Mr. Jones was transferred to other colliery work for several shifts, but he was discharged on 23rd November. During the course of the next two or three months, efforts were made by our local officers to facilitate the return of Mr. Jones to coalmining employment, but on 28th April last, he stated that he had decided not to return to coalmining and that he would not join the National Union of Mineworkers. No action is, of course, taken by my local officers to persuade coal-mining ballotees or others to join a trade union. In the circumstances of the case, therefore, and despite the fact that, at this crucial stage, the industry cannot afford to lose any experienced underground worker, I do not propose to direct Mr. Jones to return to coalmining employment.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the Parliamentary Secretary's answer mean that the National Union of Mineworkers has succeeded in excluding from the coal industry a man who was directed into it by his own Department?

Mr. Ness Edwards: The position is that the local private colliery 'management decided to terminate this man's employment.


The Ministry of Labour decided that it was not a proper case in which it should bring its influence to bear upon the private management to reinstate the man.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Parliamentary Secretary, in his supplementary answer, puts the blame on the colliery management, but is it not a fact, as stated in his earlier answer, that this was merely because the National Union of Mineworkers threatened to strike for a closed shop?

Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. Member has failed to realise the last part of my original answer—that the man himself decided not to return to the mining industry.

Mr. Molson: Is it not the case that a man who is taken by ballot for coalmining is obliged to work in a coal mine?

Mr. Ness Edwards: He is certainly obliged to work in a coal mine if the Ministry of Labour can find him a job. In this case, the man went to the pit and refused to comply with the conditions, and the management, rather than have the colliery dissatisfied, decided to terminate his employment. The man was consequently unable to work in the mining industry.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Sterling Balances

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the anticipated amount of sterling which during the present financial year, will be drawn by member countries from the International Monetary Fund.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): This must depend on the decisions of other members of the Fund who may be short of sterling. I cannot offer any estimate at present.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: As His Majesty's Government have representatives on the management of this Fund, has not the Financial Secretary any idea of what these liabilities are likely to be?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It is impossible to forecast the future in this way. I am sorry, but I cannot make a guess.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the interpret-

tation of His Majesty's Government of the extent to which sterling will become convertible after 15th July under the Anglo-American financial agreement.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I cannot add anything to the Agreement, which lays down clearly our commitments in this matter.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Would the Financial Secretary make it clear to the House whether that agreement is interpreted by His Majesty's Government as meaning gross or net balances, and also whether it refers equally to new and old balances?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It would be clearly impossible within the confines of an answer to a Question to go into these matters which are very complicated, and which, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, we have discussed privately more than once in the smoke room.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: In view of that answer, Mr. Speaker, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matte on the Adjournment.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: May I apologise to the House for using the phrase "in the smoke room"? I am afraid it slipped out, and I am extremely sorry.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: In view, of the right hon. Gentleman s apology, I beg to withdraw the notice that I propose to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state, by countries, the balances of sterling that have become convertible under existing payment agreements.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, Sir. Such a statement might be misleading, since convertible currency passes freely from one country to another.

Colonel Crosthwaite - Eyre: It His Majesty's Government, as they have already said, have no indication how much sterling will ultimately be convertible, and if they cannot estimate what sterling will be immediately convertible, how on earth can they enter into these agreements with satisfaction and credit to His Majesty's Government?

Whisky (Export -Duty)

Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer


whether he will consider putting an export duty on whisky to raise dollars; and the anticipated yield if £1 duty was imposed on each bottle.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, Sir. The estimated yield of such a tax would be very conjectural, and I am not satisfied that it would increase our dollar receipts.

Sir G. Fox: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer unable to give any figure at all, and does he not think that if more whisky was kept in this country, there would be a greater incentive for the masses to work harder?

Mr. George Wallace: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that if sufficient quantities of whisky were available, the masses would be nearly unconscious?

Espionage, Canada (Royal Commission Report)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if, in view of the continuing demand, he will now arrange for the import of at least 100,000 additional copies of the Report of the Royal Commission, published in Ottawa on 27th June, 1946, and arrange to have them made available to the public through His Majesty's Stationery Office and booksellers.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, Sir. I am only aware of a demand for some 600 copies, and I have previously explained that additional copies are on order to meet this and future possible requirements.

Sir W. Smithers: Is not the Financial Secretary aware that Communist propaganda is at the root of most of the troubles in the world today, and will he not give the British public an opportunity of reading this evidence more widely, because in it there is direct proof of Communist propaganda in this very City of London, and the public ought to be allowed to realise the danger to this country?

Mr. Gallacher: May I ask the Minister whether, in view of this desire for sensationalism, he would publish the names of those registered in the book of Captain Ramsay and thus shake some of the Tories out of their seats?

Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether "sensationalism" is the proper word for

a Member of this House to use about an official document published by a Dominion Government?

Mr. Speaker: I must say that I think it is an unfortunate thing to say about a document issued by another Government.

Earl Winterton: The hon. Member should withdraw it.

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I have not seen this document, but that what I am concerned about is the sensationalism which was expressed in the supplementary question asked by the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers)?

Earl Winterton: It is a disgraceful thing to say about a friendly Government.

Mr. Gallacher: If, after reading the hon. Member for Orpington's supplementary question, hon. Members come to the conclusion that it is not sensationalism, then I will be prepared to make a pact of friendship with the hoe. Gentleman.

Mr. Speaker: In complete fairness, must say that there is something in which I agree with the hon. Member, although that may be surprising. I will be quite frank and say that sometimes there is something rather extraordinary about the supplementary questions which are asked by the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers).

Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, to have to raise another point of Order, but I want to make it clear that your reference was not to the document issued by the Canadian Government.

Mr. Speaker: It is most unfortunate to say that a document issued by a Dominion Government is sensationalism. I gather that the hon. Member was referring to the supplementary question.

Sir W. Smithers: In view of your remark, Mr. Speaker, which I accept, may I say that these questions are not really extraordinary, and that even you do not realise the danger Of Communism in this country?

Mr. Speaker: Even so, questions should be directed to obtaining information, and not to airing personal views

CIVIL SERVICE (POLISH NATIONALS)

Mr. Piratin: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many Poles are employed in the various departments of the Civil Service; and how many are being trained in supplementary pensions and unemployment assistance works.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: One thousand, one hundred and none, respectively.

Mr. Piratin: Would the Minister tell the House the purpose of training 1,100 men in this particular Service, and whether it is in connection with the municipal service or in connection with the Resettlement Corps?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: They are civilian Poles, and they are engaged on temporary work only.

Mr. Piratin: The main point of my question was, is it intended that these Poles should take the place of British civil servants in the performance of this work?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, Sir. As I said, they are engaged on temporary work in connection with the settlement of Poles who happen to be in this country.

Mr. W. J. Brown: While I agree that the employment of Poles is wise and expedient, I would ask the Minister to see, if the occasion arises for the discharge of redundant civil servants, that no unnecessary trouble is caused by the retention of Poles while our own people may be discharged. I shall be grateful if he will bear that point in mind.

Mr. Glenvil. Hall: Certainly, Sir. That strikes me as commonsense. Because of the language difficulty, these Poles are very useful in dealing with their compatriots.

INDUSTRIAL PREMISES (REPAIR LICENCES)

Mr. S. Marshall: asked the Minister of Works whether he will instruct local authorities to grant licences for repairs to industrial premises to be carried out where evidence is provided that the necessary materials and labour are available.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Durbin): A licence

would normally be granted if the necessary materials and labour are available, and the requirements of other priority work are not prejudiced. The existing instructions to local authorities are in this sense.

Mr. Marshall: Will the Minister take into consideration the fact that permission should be given in cases where both labour and materials are known to be available, and that permission should not be refused merely for the sake of control?

Mr. Durbin: Where labour and materials are available, and where no work of greater priority is prejudiced, the instructions given to the local authorities are that licences in those circumstances should be granted.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLES, UNITED KINGDOM

Deportations to Germany

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for War by what considerations he was guided in selecting 70 Poles for deportation to Germany from approximately 10,000 members of the Polish armed forces who were neither willing to return to Poland nor to join the Polish Resettlement Corps; and by what considerations he will be guided in selecting further men for deportation.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Bellenger): The number of members of the Polish armed forces in this country who are willing neither to return to Poland nor to join the Polish Resettlement Corps is now approximately 5,000. One hundred and five have been moved to Germany. The two principal factors taken into account in selecting those sent to Germany were the order in which they were offered enlistment into the Polish Resettlement Corps or return to Poland, and the desirability of spreading the selection as widely as-possible throughout units in the United Kingdom. I am not in a position to say whether others will be sent to Germany or, if so, how they will be chosen.

Major Beamish: Is the right hon. Gentleman certain that these deportations are in accordance with previous promises given by the Government, and will he say whether he agrees that it seems a most extraordinary form of gratitude to Poles who, perhaps, fought at Tobruk and Monte


Cassino, to deport them to Germany because they will not go home or join the Polish Resettlement Corps?

Mr. Bellenger: I do not think these Poles have shown the gratitude they ought to the British Government. We are endeavouring to do what we can for these unfortunate people, but they must go through the ordinary machinery and deal with the Polish Resettlement Corps, which is the organisation for resettling them.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Apart from the merits of the matter, can my right hon. Friend explain by what legal authority a man who does not belong to Germany is deported to Germany?

Mr. Bellenger: With regard to a certain number of them I could, because deportation orders have been made against them.

Mr. S. Silverman: I am afraid my right hon. Friend has not understood my question. A deportation order to send a man to a particular country cannot be made without the man's consent, unless it is his own country. I ask under what legal authority a man is deported to Germany if he is not a German and does not agree to go there?

Mr. Bellenger: I should have thought those matters were for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. With regard to those who will neither return to Poland nor accept resettlement through the chosen instrument, the Polish Resettlement Corps, obviously, something has to be done to resettle them.

Mr. Eden: Could the right hon. Gentleman give a little more information on this matter? I thought a deportation order required the authority of a court. Who will issue the deportation order? Where are the men sent in Germany—what part of Germany? To whom are they handed over—the Russian zone?

Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir, they are not, but these Poles who will not accept "civilianisation," if I may so call it, through the Polish Resettlement Corps are under military authority.

Mr. Bing: Is my right hon. Friend aware that among those who were deported, or who are down for deportation, there is at least one man who was the assistant surgeon at the Auschwitz concentration camp, and who did not join

the Polish forces until the conclusion of hostilities, and is it not a good thing that such persons should be deported?

Major Beamish: Could it be made clear whether it is voluntary or compulsory that Poles who do not return to Poland join the Polish Resettlement Corps?

Mr. Bellenger: I should have thought, considering the arrangements which have been made through the Polish Resettlement Corps to obtain advantages for these people, that they would be only too willing to join, but if they are not willing to do so we have to settle them somewhere.

Mr. H. Hynd: My right hon. Friend has said that 5,000 of these men have refused to join the Polish Resettlement Corps or to go back to Poland. If they are not going to be dealt with in the way mentioned, how are they to be dealt with?

Major Beamish: May I have an answer to my question?

Captain Crookshank: Do I understand that the point is this? These men are given the option of either joining the Polish Resettlement Corps or going to Poland. They refuse to go to Poland and, therefore, they are sent to Germany. The question I would like to ask is, why Germany, out of all the countries in the world?

Mr. Bellenger: It is obvious that we cannot continue to keep members of the Polish land forces in this country if they are prepared neither to go back to Poland, nor to accept rehabilitation through the Polish Resettlement Corps, nor to work.

Captain Crookshank: Why send them to Germany?

Major Beamish: In view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for your guidance. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War has just informed the House that he is in the habit, in certain circumstances, the merits of which I will not go into, of compelling people who do not belong to Germany to go to Germany without their consent.


That seems to be a confession by the Secretary of State for War that he is habitually acting illegally, and, in those circumstances, may I ask what remedy the House has got?

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the matter is to be raised on the Adjournment.

Mr. Teeling: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) has announced his intention of raising the matter on the Adjournment, but it may take weeks before he gets the Adjournment. Is there no statement which can be made on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Molson: On a point of Order. When an hon. Member has announced that he will raise a matter at some time on the Adjournment, does that mean that there are no other opportunities for discussing the matter until that Adjournment?

Mr. Speaker: It means that Parliamentary Questions cannot be asked now.

Later—

Captain Crookshank: Now that we have finished Questions, is this the moment at which I can ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, that is to say, the continuing deportation of Polish subjects to Germany?

Mr. Gallacher: May I rise to a point of Order?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House to draw attention to the continuing deportation of Polish subjects to Germany. The Rule says that a matter to be discussed on such a Motion must be an urgent matter of definite public importance. But the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's Motion says that this is "continuing." That means that this has been going on for some time; and, therefore, it cannot come definitely under the Rule.

Captain Crookshank: With all due deference, Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that the matter has been brought to the attention of the House—[HON, MEMBERS: "No."] For that reason it is definite and urgent.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, but it seems to me that there is some confusion. I am not sure that the facts are quite clear. The facts must be ascertained. That is another reason for refusing the Motion for the Adjournment under Rule 8.

Mr. Eden: May I again appeal to the Secretary of State for War to make a fuller statement at an early date? No one is trying to create any prejudice on this issue, but there is concern in all quarters of the House not to do an act of injustice to these people. I say quite frankly to the House that I am not clear what the position is, and that is true of all sides of the House.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): If I may intervene, I would say I think the best thing would be for us to consider if it would be useful for such a statement to be made. I am not quite sure whether, if a statement were made, it would be made more appropriately by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War or my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. But we will look into it to see if a statement can be made.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: In the meantime are these proceedings to stop?

Mr. Morrison: It really cannot be assumed that the Government are capitulating on the point of policy involved. The right hon. Gentleman has asked for a considered statement as soon as may be, and I have promised to give consideration to that matter.

Mr. Nicholson: But, surely, the right hon. Gentleman recognises that there is general anxiety on all sides of the House at the thought that injustice may be done, and that it may be done every day? Can he assure the House that we need not have anxiety on this point while the statement is being considered?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir, we cannot give that undertaking because a Question has been put in the House. I must make it abundantly clear that the Government cannot easily be a consenting party to keeping foreigners here, at the British taxpayers' expense, for an indefinite period of time.

Mr. Nicholson: But the Government are under an obligation to keep the law.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the principle involved in this matter is not confined at all to the particular case about which the matter of policy may have commanded the agreement of many of us, but that this procedure is being used almost daily in respect of people who have been here for 20 or 30 years?

Mr. Morrison: The principle I have enunciated has to be kept in mind as well. There are too many people in this country and abroad who are continuing to live in idleness at the expense of the taxpayers.

Mr. Beswick: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he is aware that in Germany at the present time, in our own zone, there have been for the last two years about 20,000 Poles about whom no question has been asked? They have been treated and kept in far less pleasant surroundings than the Poles in this country, and there would appear to be no injustice in sending a few from this country to join the much larger number in Germany.

Mr. S. Silverman: In view of what my right hon. Friend has just said about the undesirability of keeping people here for years who are unwilling to work, will he bear in mind that some of the cases I have in mind are cases of people who are being deported because they have worked in circumstances which the Minister of Labour described the other day as "gatecrashing?"

Mr. Speaker: The Question originally was concerned with Polish soldiers only.

Emigration

Major Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for War why it is impracticable to arrange for members of the Polish armed forces who neither wish to return to Poland nor to join the Polish Resettlement Corps to emigrate to countries other than Poland.

Mr. Bellenger: There is nothing to prevent any of these Poles emigrating, provided they can make their own arrangements. It has not been possible so far to obtain more than a small proportion of vacancies under official schemes for Poles who wish to emigrate, and it is only reasonable that they should be allotted in the first place to members of the Polish Resettlement Corps, as the

recognised instrument for the resettlement of Poles.

Major Beamish: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that two Poles who wished to go to France, and who could have made arrangements to do so, but who did not wish to join the Resettlement Corps, were, in fact, deported to Germany recently?

Mr. Bellenger: We are only too willing to assist and facilitate those Poles who wish to emigrate, but they have great advantages if they do so through the Polish Resettlement Corps.

Earl Winterton: Has there been any consultation with the official body, the Inter-governmental Committee for Refugees, and have they been informed of the extraordinary policy of the Government which has just been enunciated?

Mr. Bellenger: The policy of His Majesty's Government embraces the Intergovernmental Committee and bodies of that sort.

Earl Winterton: The right hon. Gentleman does not understand the question. The Inter-governmental Committee for Refugees, of which His Majesty's Government is a member, is the official body for dealing with refugees. Have they been consulted?

Mr. Bellenger: His Majesty's Government take full responsibility.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the Poles who express a desire to emigrate to some country other than. Poland will not be sent to Germany?

Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir, we are only too willing to facilitate the emigration of these individuals.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: In view of the widespread interest of the House in this and the preceding Question, and the difficulty of getting the Adjournment in a reasonable period, will the right hon. Gentleman make a considered statement on the whole problem before the end of the week?

Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir, I could not consider making a considered statement before the end of the week. I have given what I regard as a reasonable answer to the Question.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Poles against whom orders of deportation are wrongly made can have recourse to the courts of justice by way of habeas corpus or otherwise?

Mr. Bellenger: Very well then, they must take that procedure.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the right hon. Gentleman permit those Poles whom he has sent to Germany to emigrate to other countries if they so desire?

IMPORTED U.S. PRODUCE

Sir G. Fox: asked the Minister of Food the amount that has been spent in the last six months on the importation of fresh asparagus, fresh peas and avocado pears from California, U.S.A.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): During the last six months asparagus to the c.i.f. value of about fr,160 and peas to the value of about £1,140, have been imported from the United States. Figures for avocado pears are not regularly collected, but imports from the United States in the same period are estimated to have been about 130 worth. Our statistics do not show how much of these imports came from California.

Sir G. Fox: Does not the Minister think we could do without these foods and so save the dollars?

Dr. Summerskill: The amount imported is very little. Before we issue any further open general -licences we are considering making certain restrictions.

Mrs. Jean Mann: Can the hon. Lady give any indication of who are the recipients of these luxury goods for which we are paying dollars?

Major Legge-Bourke: Can the hon. Lady say what is the amount of subsidy on each of these items?

Dr. Summerskill: These foods are not subsidised by the Government.

Mr. Solley: Can the hon. Lady say to what extent we are compelled to have these imports by virtue of Article 9 of the Anglo-American Treaty?

Dr. Summerskill: I think that it my hon. Friend will read it, he will know.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House what the Business will be next week?

Mr. H. Morrison: The Business for next week will be as follows:

On Monday, 9th June—Third Reading of the Agriculture Bill. It is alsc hoped to obtain the Second Reading of the Penicillin Bill [Lords].

On Tuesday, 10th June, and Wednesday, nth June, we shall begin the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.

On Thursday, 12th June—Report and Third Reading of the Fire Services Bill, and Committee and remaining stages of the Isle of Man Harbours Bill [Lords].

On Friday, 13th June—Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Bill, and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.

Mr. Nicholson: May I remind the Leader of the House or the Prime Minister, concerning the important announcement on India made earlier in the week, that the House will be anxious to be kept fairly frequently informed on many points? A Debate is very likely not desirable, but may we in some way be kept informed of developments? This is not a party question but one of national concern.

The Prime Minister: I did, in an answer to the hon. Gentleman on Tuesday, say that I would keep the House informed on matters of which the House should know.

Sir W. Smithers: Does the Leader of the House realise that he has put down the Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Bill for Friday, which is the 13th?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, but His Majesty's Government are entirely free from those Tory superstitions about Friday, the 13th.

Mrs. Wills: Can my right hon. Friend say whether time will be found to discuss the Motion on World Federation, and when we may have time to discuss it?

[That in order to raise the standard of living of the peoples of the world and to maintain world peace, this House requests His r Majesty's Government to affirm Britain's readiness to federate with any other nations willing to do so on the basis of a federal constitution to be agreed by a representative constituent assembly.]

Mr. Morrison: I have looked at the Motion to which my hon. Friend draws my attention, but I am afraid that, in the existing state of Business, I cannot hold out a promise for facilities for time for the Motion.

Captain John Crowder: When will the Chancellor of the Exchequer make his promised statement on equal pay?

Mr. Morrison: I am not yet quite sure, but it will be during next week.

Mr. Henry Usborne: Does my right hon. Friend realise that 80 Members of this House have signed the Motion to which the hon. Lady the Member for Duddeston (Mrs. Wills) has referred, and that many of us—probably most of us—consider it an extremely important Motion?

Mr. Morrison: I follow that point. There are various Motions that are on the Order Paper. It is a point for consideration. But I do not think that, in the existing state of Business, we can find time for the Motion.

Mr. William Ross: Could my right hon. Friend give any indication when we shall have a Debate on Scotland following the publication of the Economic White Paper?

Mr. Morrison: I should have thought the convenient way would be for that to be debated on the Scottish Estimates.

There is usually provision for debates on Scottish Estimates; indeed, I understood that was the intention—provided, of course, the Scottish Estimates are put down on the appropriate Supply Days.

Mr. Hoy: Does not my right hon. Friend remember that the Government allotted a full day for a Debate on the Welsh Economic White Paper; and could not we have an assurance that we shall get at least one day from the Government to discuss the Scottish Economic White Paper?

Mr. Morrison: I would point out to my hon. Friend that Wales is in the difficulty that it has no Welsh Estimates. Therefore, we made special provision in order to give hon. Members from Wales an opportunity for a Debate, though a rather less advantageous chance than will be available to hon. Members from Scotland.

Mrs. Mann: Does not my right hon. Friend realise from the figures in that White Paper, that Scotland's economic condition is of the very greatest importance to the well-being and the very life of the English people?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, I fully accept my hon. Friend's statement. Indeed, I myself went specially to Scotland to have a look at various economic questions which were affecting that country.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting,

from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

The House divided: Ayes, 243; Noes, 107.

Division No. 237.
AYES.
[3.44 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Gibson, C. W.
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Adams, W. T (Hammersmith, South)
Gilzean, A
Oldfield, W. H


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Alpass, J. H.
Gooch, E G
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Attewell, H. C.
Gordon-Walker, P. C
Parker, J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R
Greenwood, Rt. Hon A. (Wakefield)
Parkin, B. T


Austin, H. Lewis
Greenwood, A. W J (Heywood)
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Ayles, W. H.
Grenfell, D. R.
Pearson, A.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs B
Grey, C. F.
Peart, Capt T. F


Barstow, P. G.
Grierson, E.
Piratin, P.


Bechervaise, A E
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Benson, G.
Gunter, R. J.
Proctor, W. T.


Berry, H.
Guy, W. H.
Pryde, D. J.


Beswick, F
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Pursey, Cmdr. H


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, W. G.
Randall, H. E


Bing, G. H. C
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R
Ranger, J


Binns, J.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Rankin, J.


Blackburn, A. R
Hardy, E. A.
Rees-Williams, D. R


Blyton, W. R
Harrison, J.
Reeves, J.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Reid, T (Swindon)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Roberts, A.


Braddook, Mrs. E. M. (L'pt, Exch'ge)
Herbison, Miss M
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Bramall, E A.
Hicks, G
Roberts, W. (Cumberland N)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hobson, C. R.
Rogers, G. H R.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
House, G
Royle, C.


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Hoy, J
Sargood, R.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Scott-Elliot, W.


Buchanan, G.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N)
Shackleton, E. A. A


Burden, T. W.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Sharp, Granville


Byers, Frank
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Callaghan, James
Irving, W. J
Shurmer, P.


Carmichael, James
Janner, B.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jay, D. P. T.
Silverman. S S. (Nelson)


Chamberlain, R. A
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Skeffington, A. M.


Champion, A. J
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras S.E.)
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C


Chetwynd, G. R
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Skinnard, F. W.


Cluse, W. S.
Keenan, W.
Smith, C (Colchester)


Cocks, F S
Kenyon, C.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Collindridge, F
Kinley, J.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Collins, V. J.
Kirby, B. V
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Colman, Miss G. M
Lang. G.
Snow, Capt. J. W


Comyns, Dr L.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Solley, L. J


Cook, T. F.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Sorensen, R. W


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G
Levy, B. W.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F


Crawley, A
Lewis, A W. J. (Upton)
Sparks, J. A.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lewis, J (Bolton)
Stamford, W


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Lipson, D. L.
Stephen, C.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Longden, F.
Stubbs, A. E.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lyne, A. W.
Summerskill, Dr. Edit


Delargy, H. J.
McAdam, W
Swingler, S.


Dodds, N. N.
McGhee, H. G
Sylvester, G O


Donovan, T.
Mack, J. D
Symonds, A. L.


Driberg, T. E. N.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Dumpleton, C. W.
McKinlay, A. S.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Durbin, E. F. M.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Dye, S.
Mallalieu, J P. W.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Ede, Rt. Hon J. C.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Edelman, M.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Marquand, H. A
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Medland, H. M.
Titterington, M. F


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Middleton, Mrs. L
Tolley, L.


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Mitchison, G. R.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon G


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Monslow, W.
Usborne, Henry


Fairhurst, F.
Montague, F.
Vernon, Maj. W. F


Farthing, W. J.
Morley, R
Viant, S. P.


Fernyhough, E.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Wadsworth, G.


Field, Capt. W. J,
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Morrison, Rt Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
 Warbey, W. N.


Forman, J. C.
Moyle, A
Watkins, T. E.


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Murray, J. D
Watson, W. M.


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Nally, W.
Webb, M. (Bradford. C)


Gallacher, W
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Weitzman, D.


Ganley, Mrs C. S.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Nicholls, H. R (Stratford)
Wells, W. T (Walsall)




White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Yates, V. F.


Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Willis, E.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Wise, Major F. J



Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Woods, G. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Williams, Rt. Hon. T (Don Valley)
Wyatt, W.
Mr. Simmons and




Mr. Popplewell.




NOES.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Grimston, R. V.
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.


Barlow, Sir J.
Harvey, Air-Comdre A V
Neven-Spence, Sir B


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
Haughton, S. G.
Nicholson, G.


Birch, Nigel
Head, Brig. A. H.
Orr-Ewing, I. L


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Osborne, C.


Bossom, A. C.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Peaks, Rt Hon. O


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hope, Lord J.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Hurd, A
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'brgh W.)
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C (Hillhead)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Jeffreys, General Sir G
Roberts, Maj P. G (Ecclesall)


Carson, E.
Jennings, R.
Ropner, Col. L.


Challen, C.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Sanderson, Sir F.


Channon, H.
Keeling, E H.
Shephard S (Newark)


Clarke, Col. R. S
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon H. F. C
Lambert, Hon. G.
Smithers, Sir W.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Spence, H. R.


Crowder, Capt. John E
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A H
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M


Darling, Sir W. Y
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


De la Bère, R.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Studholme, H. G.


Digby, S. W.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Sutcliffe, H.


Drewe, C.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Dugdale, Mai. Sir T (Richmond)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Teeling, William


Duthie, W. S.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thornton-Kemsley. C N.


Eccles, D. M.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Touche, G. C.


Eden, Rt Hon. A.
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Vane, W. M. F.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Marlowe, A A. H.
Walker-Smith, D.


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Marples, A. E.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Marsden, Capt. A.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Fox, Sir G.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Winterton, Rt. Hon Earl


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Mellor, Sir J.
York, C.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Molson, A. H E.



Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grant, Lady
Morrison, Maj, J. G. (Salisbury)
Major Conant and


Gridley, Sir A
Morrison, Rt. Hon W. S. (Cirencester)
Lieut -Colonel Thorp.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee and on re-committal) further considered.

CLAUSE 16.—(Dispossession on grounds of bad estate management.)

3.52 p.m.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 16, line 5, at the end, to insert:
Provided that any person aggrieved by the determination of the Agricultural Land Tribunal on any question of law, may appeal from that determination to the High Court.
Like many other matters dealt with by Parliament nowadays, this Amendment will not directly produce any additional food. Its effect is to enable any person who has had occasion to appeal to the agricultural land tribunal and is aggrieved by its decision, to appeal to a legal court of justice on any point of law which

may have arisen. This is not a new principle. There have been many precedents where extra-judicial tribunals have had occasion to consider appeals of one sort or another from the citizens of this country. The Solicitor-General will recognise that the Special Commissioners of Inland Revenue are in a somewhat analagous position. In so far as this special tribunal deals with questions of fact, its decisions are final, but in so far as its decision may involve a question of law, the citizen has the right of appeal to a legal as opposed to an extra-judicial court. That right of appeal has not been included in this Bill so far. It may be asked why we should seek to insert this Amendment in regard to this particular right of appeal when there are other rights of appeal in different parts of the Bill. The answer is that this is the most convenient occasion to raise the issue, and that if the Government are prepared to accept the principle, they can introduce amendments to other parts of the Bill. If the Government will assure us that they


accept the principle and will introduce the necessary Amendments, I am sure that my hon. Friends will have pleasure in withdrawing this Amendment.
There are other precedents for this Amendment. For instance, in the Arbitration Act a similar right exists. The principle this Amendment seeks to introduce is already contained in the Agricultural Holding Act, 1923. The only answer which can be produced against this Amendment is that no question of law is likely to be involved in appeals to the agricultural land tribunal. If the Minister sought to proffer that argument he would I think lose the support of his colleague the Solicitor-General. We are dealing with a Bill of some 109 pages, and it is inconceivable, hard though our efforts have been to improve the Measure, that it is as yet perfect. There are an infinite variety of questions of construction which are bound to be raised, and no one can be so brazen as to suggest that questions on interpretation are unlikely to arise.
It is obvious that questions of law are likely to arise, and in this connection I would draw attention to the Clause we are seeking to amend. It provides a right of appeal for any person to whom a notice is given, subject to the foregoing Subsection. If one refers to that Subsection, one finds a cross-reference to Subsections (1), (2) and (3), with a reference back to Subsection (6) which relates to paragraph 3 of the First Schedule to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure), Act. It is inconceivable, with such a complicated reference, that no questions of construction will arise. The right of a citizen to appeal to a court of law on a legal question is a fundamental right. It is a right which has been recognised in practically every other type of reference to a lay tribunal, and has been specifically recognised in regard to agriculture.

Mr. York: I beg to second the Amendment.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I cannot accept this Amendment, as I think the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) anticipated. As he said, it will not increase production, but will increase the work of the legal fraternity. The chairman of this tribunal is a lawyer appointed by the Lord Chancellor, and he must be a barris-

ter or a solicitor of not less than seven years' standing. He will, therefore, be fully competent to decide any question of law. The only question to be decided by the tribunal is whether or not the certificate of the Minister in regard to bad estate management is right or wrong. That is the only point with which the tribunal has to deal, and it is mainly a question of fact and not of law. There is no need for an appeal to the High Court, but if there is any question of the Minister acting ultra vires, there will be a right td go to the courts to quash the certificate to purchase land referred to in Clause 16 There is, therefore, no need to provide for reference to the High Court, and I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment, and that Members opposite will not prolong the Debate.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies: I am surprised at the answer which the Minister has just given. Too often, nowadays, matters are being taken out of the hands of tribunals and being put into the hands of the Executive, and this is another instance of it. We have the three parts of the constitution—the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. The Judiciary is the one on which we have to depend for interpretation of the law, and, very often, for the defence of liberty against the Executive. All that is asked for in this Amendment is that questions of law shall be referred to the High Court. The Minister made the rather feeble answer that this will not affect production. Of course, questions of law do not affect production. But what might be involved is a serious matter of law.
The Minister said that the chairman of the tribunal would be a barrister of seven years' standing. May I remind him that barristers can make mistakes? Even High Court judges can make mistakes. Often one has to take their opinion to a higher court in order to ascertain what is the law of the land. The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) called the attention of the House to other Acts of Parliament, in particular to those in connection with arbitration. There can be appeals from the findings and decisions of arbitration tribunals to the High Court Such tribunals can be asked to state a case for the opinion of the court on a question of law. Why should not that practice be followed here? Why should


not the chairman of this tribunal be asked to state a case if a question of law arises?
Take the example of workmen's compensation in the old days. Questions of fact were referred to the county court judge who, before he was appointed, must have been called to the Bar for seven years. On questions of fact, he was the final arbitrator. There was no appeal on fact at all, but there was an appeal on law. The Minister must not assume that all these things are so easy of interpretation. I would remind the House that one of the most difficult questions that ever arose was: What was the meaning of, "arising out of and in the course of employment?" That led to no end of litigation until, at last, the question was settled by the highest tribunal in the land. It is wrong of the Executive to deprive the subject of the right to have questions of law decided by those who are capable of deciding them, namely, the Judiciary. I hope the hon. Member for Chichester will press this Amendment to a Division.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: I, too, was disappointed with the reply of the Minister of Agriculture to this Amendment, which was moved so clearly and well by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks). I was also disappointed that the Minister came to the Despatch Box, rather than the Solicitor-General. I had hoped, seeing the Solicitor-General by his side, that the House would have had the advantage of his guidance on this important question. But the Minister rushed in where the Solicitor-General feared, or, at any rate, hesitated, to tread, and made a most perfunctory and superficial reply.
The Minister took the view, first, that there would not be points of law and, second, that if there were points of law the tribunal would be well qualified to discharge them. Taking the second point first, on what grounds does the right hon. Gentleman base that confidence? On grounds which I, as a lawyer, must applaud but which, as a member of this House, fill me with some scepticism. The right hon. Gentleman said that because the tribunal would have a chairman who would be a barrister or solicitor of not less than seven years' standing all the puzzles and problems of the law would be as an open book to him. Well, I am a barrister of a good deal more than seven years' standing, and I am sure no lawyer would claim for barristers or solicitors of

not less than seven years standing that omniscience that the Minister of Agriculture so touchingly seems to feel.
The tribunal itself is not the right court to decide legal questions. The Minister said, "It does not much matter, because there will not be legal questions." How does he know that? Surely, the whole of our history argues against so optimistic a proposition. The drafting of legislation, indeed, all legal documents, contracts, and agreements of every sort, is a history of effort to try to make them clear beyond a peradventure, to try to exclude questions of interpretation. The whole of that history is a history of honourable failure, because there are no Acts or forms of contract, which have not time and again to be subject to the interpretation of the courts. It is in the interpretation of these documents that these matters are certain to arise.
What should the remedy be in such cases? I think it was clearly put by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). He said that en these points of law, or, if the Minister prefers it, of arbitration—because it is the same for this purpose—the tribunal should follow the well-known procedure of stating a case. The tribunal should state a case on the basis of the facts. It should give a point of law which has to be decided, and on that case the High Court would come to a conclusion on the law. That is the well understood practice. Why should not that be applied in this case?
Lastly, I would like to reinforce the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester in regard to the psychological advantage of incorporating into the Statute a provision like this. Even taking the Minister's argument at its highest value, it is worth importing this Amendment into the Bill even if it will not be necessary. If occasions are few then there is all the less work for the High Court to do, but that is no reason for not legislating for these occasions. I agree with my hon. Friend that the right of appeal to the High Court will provide immense reinforcement and encouragement to those to whom this Bill will apply, and from whom it is in the interest of the country that we should encourage the highest effort.

Mr. Lambert: As a layman, I intervene with a good deal of trepidation, but it is with great pleasure


that I support my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). As a farmer and as a Member representing a farming constituency, I resent the fact that the agricultural community as a whole should be denied the right of appealing to a court of law on a point of law, which is given to every other person in the constituency. I had the honour to be a member of the Committee on this Bill, and, more often than not, the lawyers on the Committee spent a great deal of time in disagreement, particularly the Solicitor-General and the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels). The Minister says that this will not affect food production; on the contrary, I think that it will. You cannot expect the farming community to give of their best if they are labouring under grievances. Therefore, I would appeal to the Minister to see that the agricultural community are treated in the same way as other members of the community.

Captain Crookshank: I hoped that we were to hear something from the learned Solicitor-General on this point. If he is not disposed to address the House, I would like to make it plain that I am not at all satisfied with the Minister's answer. I have been looking round to see whether the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) is here. Since the Committee stage of this Bill, I understand that he has become a King's 'Counsel, so his legal advice has been enhanced. On similar Amendments in Committee upstairs, he made the statement that
points of interpretation do arise ands different lawyers and different tribunals may take differing views on them
I stress these words because there may be more than one tribunal. It was not quite settled at the time of the Committee, but I understand that there is not to be one tribunal for the whole of the United Kingdom, but that there are to be regional tribunals, and, therefore, in the words of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton, the fact that
different lawyers and different tribunals may take differing views
seems of some importance. He also stated that
if there is a central court which can decide which of these interpretations are right, it

might be for the convenience of all the tribunals."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, Wednesday, 26th March, c. 741.]
and he ended by saying that he hoped that this matter would be reconsidered before the Report stage.
Those hopes have gone, apparently, although, in the view of the Government then, the weight of the argument was not very definite either way, because the Parliamentary Secretary said that the Government had considered the matter very carefully, and they felt that, on balance, it would be undesirable to introduce words of that sort into the Clause. It looks as if they had discussed the matter with great care and finally come down against us. If it is such a narrow division of opinion as all that, we urge the Government, in the light of the arguments this afternoon, to reverse that decision, and to come down on our side—as the Minister said that he does not expect many cases to arise for different interpretations of the law, and the Parliamentary Secretary said in Committee that he could not conceive in practice that there would be any substantial points of law between these tribunals at any time. If that is so, it is all the more reason for putting this safeguard in for the small number of cases that may arise. It cannot open the flood gates if the Minister's estimation of the situation is right, and there is ample precedent for words of this kind in somewhat similar Statutes.
It is quite true that this will not affect production directly, although indirectly, as has been said, it may very well do so. It is obvious that on the direct question of whether there is to be appeal on a question of law, that will not affect production to any great extent; but if there is a certain feeling of security that things will not go wrong through misintepretation of what the Act means—because that is what determination of questions of law really refers to—and people feel that they have that much on which to rely, I am of the opinion that it would help the general situation and ease the passage of some of these matters. As the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) pointed out, this does arise on this Clause—because it seemed the first occasion on which it was appropriate to raise it—and it arises on the all-important matter of possible dispossession.
4.15 p.m.
To come back to the main argument, I think that it would give some confidence to the people concerned, and because we envisage the existence and working of more than one tribunal, we feel that it is for that reason, if for no other, necessary that there should be some interpretation from above to which all the tribunals can conform it difficult questions of law are involved. I hope that the Minister even now will repent. If he shows no signs of repentance, I shall have no hesitation in advising my hon. Friends to take the question to a Division.

Mr. T. Williams: I can only say another word on this with the permission of the House. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware we have not been unreasonable in our consideration or reconsideration of the points brought to our notice. I am sure that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) will not have lost sight of the development that has taken place in this particular field since the war. During the war when questions of dispossession arose, the Minister was the only person who could decide—and he did so—on the advice of the executive committees. He could send along his land commissioner, an impartial person acting on the Minister's behalf, for a second point of view and with that second view of the whole of the facts—as distinct from points of law—a decision was taken. The House of Commons, time and again, felt rather worried, first that the executive committees who were the agents of the Minister, were taking a decision, and then that the second point of view obtained was that of a land commissioner who was the Minister's civil servant representative. It was, therefore, argued, from time to time that this was not quite fair, and it caused anxiety among the farming community which might result in a loss of production and that sort of thing. We have gone one step beyond that. I have said that in every case where a question of dispossession is likely to arise the person concerned will have a right of appeal to an independent appeal tribunal. [An HON. MEMBER: "In war time? "] In peace time. I undertook at a very early date after taking office that in future cases—from the time I spoke in this House—no person would be dispossessed unless and until he had had an opportunity of

appearing before an appeal tribunal, and that the appeal tribunal would consist of a legal personality—in whom the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) does not seem to have a lot of confidence—plus a landowner and a farmer. I ask hon. Members whether it is possible to find a tribunal more calculated to give confidence to the farming community than a tribunal of that description.

Mr. Hugh Eraser: Not on points of law.

Mr. Williams: The question of dispossession is one not of law but of fact. It has always been felt that to preserve confidence within the industry, it was necessary to employ persons who had the confidence of the industry. We have gone as far as ever the House of Commons could reasonably ask us to go, and I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will feel that we are not denying the farming community a reasonable opportunity.

Mr. C. Davies: On questions of fact—

Mr. T. Williams: That is all they have to deal with.

Mr. C. Davies: That is all they ought to deal with, but from time immemorial in this country questions of law are submitted to the judiciary, which is competent to deal with them, and that is all that we are asking for. In these cases, if a question of law arises, it should be sent to the people who can deal with it.

Sir John Barlow: Farmers in all parts of the country will not be satisfied unless an appeal is allowed in these cases. It was one thing for the Minister to have these great powers in wartime, but in peacetime the tribunal which it is proposed to set up is in my opinion insufficient, and that view is shared by the vast majority of farmers in this country. I hope the Minister will see his way to accept this Amendment.

Major Mott-Radclyffe: I think the Minister's second intervention has made the atmosphere even worse than his first, because he is consistently confusing points of law with points of fact. Every appeal and every lawsuit in the world is related to facts, and what we are asking here is that appeals should be allowed only where a point of law is in doubt. It is really no use for the right hon. Gentleman to say that in cases of a landowner's or a farmer's dispossession,


or in the case of an owner-occupier losing his entire holding, the only question at issue is a question of fact. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the interpretation of these Clauses will always be entirely factual, and that no questions of law will arise at all on Clauses 10 and 16? Does he mean that no point of law will ever arise on a tenancy agreement, from the point of view of either the landlord or of the occupier? Where a man's livelihood, his home, and probably the whole of his capital invested in a farm are at stake, he really ought to he allowed what every other citizen is allowed, the right of appeal to the High Court from the land tribunal. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has so little confidence in his tribunals that he is afraid of allowing appeals from them to the High Court.

Mr. H. Fraser: It amazes me that the learned Solicitor-General has not helped us on this Amendment; he is sitting there and not taking part, though we had hoped for an interpretation of this. I hope that before this argument is brought to a conclusion we shall have the benefit of his advice. The Minister did not improve his case in his second speech. We all agree that during the war a great many things had to be done, but now surely the point is to see not only that justice is done but that it shall seem to be done. In questions involving a legal point it is surely right that there should be an appeal to the High Court? It seems to us on this side that although questions of law may not necessarily arise, there should be the right of appeal in case they do. If that right of appeal is granted by the Minister a great many people in the farming community will feel far greater confidence in this and in other Clauses of the Bill.

Mr. Vane: The right hon. Gentleman gave us the impression that the main function of these land tribunals would be finding facts in con-

nection with the dispossession of owners or occupiers, in other words, questions of good husbandry or good management. Their functions will, however, be a great deal wider than that. They will deal with the purchase of land, with the control of the splitting up of farm units, with consent to notices to quit, with certificates of bad husbandry and other things besides—I quote them from the right hon. Gentleman's own White Paper—and I suggest that those matters give ample scope for difficulties in the interpretation of the law to arise. If he really means what he says when he says that he wishes for confidence in all the organisations he is setting up, surely he ought to allow the modest right of appeal for which we are asking.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am sorry I did not hear the Minister's first intervention, but his second intervention supplied sufficient cause for very acute anxiety in this matter, if his words really mean what they appear to mean. I can only say that the line he is taking would, if it were fully followed out, lead to the abolition of courts of law altogether. The Minister's view is apparently that justice can be done by the appointment of expert bodies without appeal to any court of law. The general thesis behind his argument is intensely dangerous, but I can see no other conclusion from his remarks. I hope the Solicitor-General will be able to put that right; I have great respect for him and I am very sorry that he is being so insulted by his colleague the Minister of Agriculture, who is undermining the whole standing of the law of this country—which is what is being attacked, indirectly, by the words the Minister used. I hope we shall get some sort of assurance; there is a very serious danger in what the Minister has said this afternoon.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 114; Noes, 224.

Division No. 238.]
AYES
[4.28 p.m.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Carson, E
Darling, Sir W. Y.


Baldwin, A. E.
Challen, C
Davies, Clement (Montgomery)


Barlow, Sir J.
Channon, H.
Digby, S. W.


Beamish, Maj. T V H.
Clarke, Col. R. S
Dodds-Parker, A. D


Birch, Nigel
Conant, Maj. R. J. E
Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P W.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Cooper-Key, E. M
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt Hon H F C
Duthie, W. S.


Buchan-Hepburn, P G T
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E
Eccles, D. M.


Bullock, Capt. M
Crowder, Capt. John E
Eden, Rt. Hon A.


Byers, Frank
Cuthbert, W N
Elliot, Rt. Hon Walter




Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A H
Ropner, Col. L.


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Gage, C.
Lipson, D. L.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Smithers, Sir W.


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Spence, H. R.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Grant, Lady
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M


Gridley, Sit A
Maitland, Comdr. J W.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Grimston, R. V.
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Studholme, H. G


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Marsden, Capt. A.
Sutcliffe, H.


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Haughton, S. G.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Teeling, William


Head, Brig. A. H.
Mellor, Sir J.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Molson, A. H E.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Vane, W. M. F.


Hope, Lord J.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Wadsworth, G.


Howard, Hon. A
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.
Walker-Smith, D.


Hurd, A.
Neven-Spence, Sir B
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Nicholson, G.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Jeffreys, General Sir G
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Osborne, C.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Keeling, E. H.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W H
Ponsonby, Col. C. E
York, C.


Lambert, Hon. G.
Raikes, H. V.



Lancaster, Col. C G
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Law, Rt. Hon R. K.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N)
Mr. Drewe and Major Ramsay.




NOES.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Edelman, M
Kenyon, C.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Kinley, J.


Allen, A. C (Bosworth)
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Kirby, B. V.


Alpass, J. H.
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Attewell, H. C.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Levy, B. W.


Austin, H. Lewis
Ewart, R.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Ayles, W. H.
Fairhurst, F.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs B
Farthing, W. J.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Balfour, A
Fernyhough, E.
Longden, F.


Barstow, P G.
Field, Capt, W J
Lyne, A. W.


Bechervaise, A E
Foot, M. M.
McAdam, W.


Benson, G.
Forman, J. C.
McGhee, H. G.


Berry, H.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Mack, J. D.


Beswick, F.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
McKinlay, A S.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Gallacher, W.
Maclay, Hon. J. S


Bing, G. H. C.
Ganley, Mrs. C S
McLeavy, F.


Blackburn, A R
Gibson, C. W.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Blyton, W. R.
Gilzean, A.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mallalieu, J. P. W


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Gooch, E. G.
Mann, Mrs. J.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Goodrich, H E.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Marquand, H A.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Greenwood, A. W J (Heywood)
Mathers, G.


Brown, T. J (Ince)
Grenfell, D. R.
Middleton, Mrs. L


Brown, W. J (Rugby)
Grey, C. F.
Mitchison, G. R.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Grierson, E.
Monslow, W


Buchanan, G.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Montague, F.


Callaghan, James
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Morley, R.


Carmichael, James
Gunter, R. J.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Castle, Mrs. B. A
Guy, W. H.
Morrison, Rt Hon H. (Lewisham, E.)


Champion, A. J
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Moyle, A.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col R.
Murray, J. D


Cluse, W. S.
Hardy, E. A.
Nally, W


Cooks, F. S.
Harrison, J.
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Collindridge, F.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Collins, V. J.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Colman, Miss G. M
Herbison, Miss M.
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Comyns, Dr. L.
Hicks, G
Oldfield, W. H.


Cook, T. F.
Holman, P.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G
Holmes, H E. (Hemsworth)
Palmer, A. M. F


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hoy, J
Parker, J


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Parkin, B T.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Paton, J. (Norwich)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W)
Peart, Capt T. F


Delargy, H. J.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Popplewell, E.


Diamond, J.
Irving, W. J.
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Dodds, N. N
Janner, B.
Proctor, W. T.


Donovan, T.
Jay, D. P. T.
Pryde, D. J.


Driberg, T. E. N
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Pursey, Cmdr. H


Dumpleton, C. W.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Randall, H. E.


Durbin, E. F. M.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Ranger, J.


Dye, S.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Rankin, J.


Ede, Rt. Hon J C
Keenan, W.
Rees-Williams, D. R







Reeves, J.
Sorensen, R. W.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurs.)


Reid, T. (Swindon)
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Warbey, W. N.


Robens, A.
Sparks, J. A.
Watkins, T. E.


Rogers, G. H. R.
Stamford, W.
Watson, W. M.


Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Stephen, O.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Royle, C.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Sargood, R.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Scott-Elliot, W.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Shackleton, E. A. A
Swingler, S.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Sharp, Granville
Sylvester, G. O.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Shurmer, P.
Symonds, A. L.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Willis, E.


Simmons, C. J.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Skeffington, A. M.
. Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Wise, Major F. J


Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)
Woods, G. S.


Skinnard, F. W.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Yates, V. F.


Smith, C (Colchester)
Titterington, M. F
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Tolley, L.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Turner-Samuels, M.



Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Snow, Capt. J. W.
Viant, S. P.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Hannan.

CLAUSE 17.—(Dispossession on grounds of bad husbandry.)

The Solicitor-General (Sir Frank Soskice): I beg to move, in page 17, line 44, at the end, to insert:
(6) Where under paragraph (a) of Subsection (1) of this Section an order is made terminating the interest of a tenant in part only of a holding (as defined in the said Act of 1923 and Part III of this Act),—

(a) the said provisions relating to compensation shall apply as if the part to which the order relates were a separate holding: and
(b) the tenant shall be entitled to a reduction of rent proportionate to the part to which the order relates, and the amount of that reduction shall be settled by arbitration under the said Act of 1923."
This Clause deals with dispossession on the ground of bad husbandry, and as it now stands an order can relate to either the whole or part of a holding, but there is no provision as to how the Clauses for compensation are to apply if a dispossession order has been made only in relation to part of a holding instead of the whole of the holding. This Amendment provides that, when an order relates only to part of the holding, that part shall be treated as a separate holding for the purpose of compensation. In other words, it means that compensation shall be related to the part of the holding affected by the dispossession order. This Amendment remedies what is an omission in the Clause as at present drafted though it is not a drafting Amendment.

Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: I wish to thank the Solicitor-General for his explanation and we on this side of the Committee readily accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, in page 18, line 1, to leave out subsection (6), and to insert:
(6) Where the interest of an occupier in any land is terminated under Subsection (1) of this Section, or an occupier is required thereunder to give up his occupation of any land, and at any time after the date specified for the purposes of that subsection the occupier remains in possession of the land, the Minister may make complaint to a court of summary jurisdiction and thereupon the court shall by its warrant order vacant possession of the land to be given to the Minister forthwith.
A warrant under this Subsection shall subject to the necessary modifications be in the form set out in the Schedule to the Small Tenements Recovery Act, 1838, or in a form to the like effect.
During the discussions in Committee a great deal of criticism was expressed because a constable could act without securing any specific authority in a dispossession case. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) was very hot on this particular business, and I made a promise to reconsider the whole thing. The effect of the Amendment is that, instead of conferring upon a constable the power to eject an occupier who has been dispossessed, the Minister is now given power to go to a court of summary jurisdiction and ask for a warrant. With such a warrant a constable will have the necessary authority to eject an occupier who has refused to quit. The court cannot consider the merits of the case. It can only consider whether or not the agricultural land tribunal have done their duty. All the court will have power to do is to satisfy itself that the necessary steps leading up to dispossession have been taken, and then, if the court is satisfied, it must issue the warrant to


the constable who can perform his duty. I think that that coincides with the desires expressed in Standing Committee.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: This change represents a very definite improvement in the Bill, and we are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the step he has taken. I hope he will recognise, as a matter of historical accuracy, that it was the Opposition who first drew attention to this particular danger, although we are most grateful for the help of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels). The change has now been made and we, of course, support it.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I should like to add a word of thanks to the Minister. This matter was the subject of some difficulty in Committee, and it is good to know that he has looked at it and that the change, which is very welcome, is now to be made.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 18.—(Power of Minister to take possession where occupier dispossessed and no other arrangements made.)

Colonel Clarke: I beg to move, in page 18, line II, after "may," to insert:
after giving not less than seven days' notice in writing.
The Minister does not take action under this Clause unless the owner concerned has either failed to start farming the land himself as instructed, or has failed to re-let it following the dispossession of the former tenant. The Minister has to give not less than three months' notice to the dispossessed tenant, and following the dispossession order, the owner may apply to the Minister for permission to take the land in hand and farm it himself. The Minister may, of course, refuse that application. The point I want to emphasise is that the submission of the application, its consideration and its refusal may take a considerable time, say, six weeks. That will allow the owner only a further six weeks in which to obtain another tenant. That is not very long, and there may be several prospective tenants. The farmer may have to go to see their holdings and do all the other things that any one who is taking a new tenant needs to do, such as seeing the land which a prospective tenant is farming at present, obtaining

references, and so on. Again, it may be late in the season, when tenants tend to drive a hard bargain, and the owner may not be able to come to terms with them, particularly if they know that he is in difficulties because, through no fault of his own, there is an order hanging over the land.
In these circumstances the owner may be in a very invidious position, and it seems reasonable that the final act in the drama should not come like a bolt from the blue, but that at least a week's notice should be given that the time of grace is over and that the Minister intends to take over the land. As the provision stands at present, it is fairly wide. Supposing there were quite a small matter to be tied up—perhaps two tenants still on the short list, and a choice to be made between them. As the Clause is drafted, the landlord would have no time at all. I think it would be in the interests of everybody, including the Minister, that the owner should have this extra week. It would give him the little time that is required to wind up the business finally and to have matters confirmed. Therefore, I hope that this Amendment, which I think a very reasonable one and one which is in the interests of everybody, may receive favourable consideration.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. H. Fraser: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. T. Williams: Clause 18 provides that where an occupier is dispossessed under Clause 17, and the owner has made no satisfactory arrangements to farm the land by the time he leaves the holding, the Minister may take possession. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman has just explained, the purpose of this Amendment is to give the landowner seven days more in which to find a tenant. I cannot quite understand the attitude of the hon. and gallant Gentleman in asking for the further seven days. After all, the tenant cannot be dispossessed for three months after the decision has been taken, and, therefore, the landowner has the three months in which to find a new tenant. Surely, if any landlord were endeavouring to find a tenant and there were a few odd days—perhaps a week, or even a fortnight—a county executive committee would hardly take possession of the farm The landlord would be certain to be in close touch with the county executive committee and


would tell them if he had a certain tenant in mind. The short period in dispute might be eight days, which would be one more than the hon. and gallant Gentleman has suggested, so that his Amendment would not cover such a case I ask him, therefore, to rely first of all on the three months' notice which the landlord receives, and, secondly, on the wisdom of the landlord himself working in harmony with the county executive committee. I see no reason for allowing the extra seven days.

Colonel Clarke: I tried to make the point that the period might not be three months. If the owner had applied to be allowed to farm the land himself, it might be cut down to six weeks. However, if the Minister will give me an assurance that the knife is not coming down at about 24 hours' notice—that on receiving this second notice the owner will be able to go to the local agricultural committee and say, "I want only a few more days; I have two prospective tenants on the short list; I saw the farm of one of them on Tuesday and I am going to see the other next week, and then I shall be in a position to say which I have chosen"—and if he will say that he will not be absolutely hard and fast about this, I shall be prepared to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. T. Williams: I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that county executive committees must be reasonable both with landlords and tenants, otherwise the whole goodwill on which the Bill is based will be lost.

Colonel Clarke: In view of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

CLAUSE 20.—(Interpretation of references in Part II to "owner" and "manager.")

Amendment made: In page 21, line 23, insert "the."—[Mr. T. Williams.]

Mr. Baldwin: I beg to move, in page 21, line 34, after "person," to insert:
being the owner of the land in question.
The object of this Amendment is to obtain some clarification. In the Standing Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. York) had on the Order Paper an Amendment to delete this

Clause. We then had a very lucid explanation by the Minister which, unfortunately, cannot be attached to the Bill. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) thanked the Minister for his explanation and asked whether it would not be possible to effect some simplifiction. The Minister replied:
I do not know whether it can be made clearer, but it is very clear to those who drafted this wording. In any case, we will have a look at it again."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A; 6th March, 1947; c. 389].
It may be very clear to those who drafted the Clause, but it is very difficult for those who have to interpret the Measure. I ask the Minister to reconsider this point and to make quite clear exactly what the position is. We want to make sure that where a man owns one farm and is tenant of another farm belonging to someone else, and appoints the same agent to look after the two farms, if the agent does his job badly and it becomes necessary to dispossess the farmer of the farm that he owns, the owner of the second farm shall not be penalised by having his farm taken over as well. The owner of the farm may not be resident in this country and he may have appointed an agent upon whom he relies, and that agent may have let him down. Unless it is made clear, the position may be that the owner will be dispossessed of his farm through the fault of his agent. We ask the Minister to see whether that could not be made more explicit. The ordinary layman who has to interpret this Measure will never know where he stands.

Mr. York: I beg to second the Amendment.
We had a small Debate on this matter in Standing Committee, and it was apparent that the Subsection was not understood by the Committee. The Minister explained it satisfactorily, but we believe that if these words are added there may be no further misunderstanding. I hope the Minister will agree to include them.

The Solicitor-General: I will willingly, so far as I can, endeavour to make clear what this Subsection is meant to do. I do not think we can accept the Amendment, because that would make the Subsection do what we do not want it to do. If hon. Members will consider this Clause


in relation to Clause 16, they will see the object of the Subsection. Let us go to Clause 16 (1) and (2) first. Hon. Members will remember that under Subsection (1) the Minister in the circumstances there described can, in the first place, acquire the land to which the Order relates, or any part of that land. Then he can go on and, under Subsection (2), acquire any other land managed by the same person. He can, therefore, acquire those two groups of land. Supposing two plots of land, plots A and B, were both being managed by the same land agent. Looking only at Clause 16 (2) the fact that they were being managed by the same land agent would bring them within the scope of the words I have quoted, but there are these correcting words in Clause 20 (3) saying that in a case of that sort the mere fact that the land is being managed by the same land agent is not enough, and that one has not to look at the, land agent, but at the person who is employing the land agent.
One has, therefore, to ask in relation to plots A and B not whether they are being managed by the same land agent, but whether the same person is managing them through a land agent or through whomever else he pleases. What is the net result of all that? Whenever one is seeking to acquire land under Clause 16, the sole test is whether the land is being managed by the same owner in the sense I indicated. I want to qualify that in this way. In order to manage land within the meaning of the words I have quoted, a person need not actually be the owner. He may be a long leaseholder. He has to be a person whose relationship to that land is such that one can fairly say of him that he is managing it; that is to say, his relationship is that of a landlord to the land. That would obviously include the case of a freeholder, but it also includes a long leaseholder. One would ordinarily say of a long leaseholder that he manages that land.

Mr. York: One of 21 years?

The Solicitor-General: The term of the lease is not defined in the Bill, and hon. Members may well ask how long. I can only answer that that is a question of degree. One could not say it of a leaseholder who had no more than a year's interest, but one could say it of a lease-

holder who had a 10 years' lease. That is what it is meant to mean. I hope I have made it clear why we cannot accept the words:
… being the owner of the land in question.
They would exclude the case of the long leaseholder of 10 or 20 years or whatever period his lease was, and Subsection (3) would not do what we want it to do. That is why I ask the House to say that the Amendment should not be accepted. Hon. Members might say that if that is all we want to do, why should we not rely on Clause 20 (2) which provides that in certain circumstances the leaseholder may be treated as the owner; that is to say, the freeholder may be pushed aside and the leaseholder substituted for the purpose of the Bill. That is not sufficient for our purpose, because under Subsection (2, a) agreement is required and under Subsection (2, b) an application to the land tribunal is required. It would, therefore, not go far enough for us. For the purpose of Clause 16 (2) we want the word "owner" to apply automatically to a long leaseholder. If that is not clear, I apologise to the House. This is not easy to expound.

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: I do not know whether I understood the Solicitor-General quite accurately, but the interpretation he gave about the owner of land seemed to be rather alarming. If I understood him aright, he said that anyone who had land on a to years' lease, or longer, would be, for the purposes of Clauses 10 and 16, considered the owner of that land, and if he failed in the functions of management of that land, he would be liable to supervision and, eventually, dispossession. That is really very alarming. A good many owners of property probably have farms let on 10 or 21 years' leases. It seems very peculiar that if one leases a farm to a tenant for 10 or 21 years and he mismanages it, the farm should then be compulsorily acquired by the Minister under Clause 16. I think I must have made a mistake, so perhaps the Solicitor-General can make it clear to me and to other hon. Members who may have put the same interpretation on what he has just told us.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Vane: I may be very dense, but may I ask the Solicitor-General whether


the effect of Clause 20 (3) is, that where an agent acts for a principal who is the owner of a piece of land and is also the leaseholder of another piece of land, and he has attracted the attention of the agricultural committee because of his sins of omission on the piece of land of which he is the owner, then under Clause 16 (2) proceedings for dispossession can be initiated which will dispossess him as the owner of the one piece of land and also as the occupier of the other piece of land? If so, it means that dispossession under Clause 16 can be manipulated to cover not only bad estate management but bad husbandry, too, under Subsection (2). Would he also confirm that the freehold of the second piece of land let to a farm tenant on a long lease will not be affected by sins of omission committed by the farm tenant?

The Solicitor-General: As I am not the Minister in charge of the Bill, I ask leave of the House to speak again. Under Clause 16, Subsections (1) and (2), if the owner of plot A manages it so badly as to bring himself within the general purview of the Clause—that is to say, has exposed himself to the pains and penalties of dispossession—an order can be made under Subsection (1) in relation to plot A. Suppose he is the long leaseholder, say 20 years, of plot B. He will, within the meaning of the words in line 15 be a person who is managing plot B. Supposing then that the Minister is satisfied that it is necessary, for the purpose of securing the proper management of plot A, that plot B must be acquired because they are a single economic unit and cannot be managed separately without dividing them into uneconomic units, or, in accordance with the requirements of the words, the Minister—
…is satisfied that it is necessary for securing the proper management thereof"—
thereof meaning plot A—
that he should acquire any other land…
—plot B, of which this particular proprietor is the long leaseholder then, under Subsection (2), the Minister can acquire not only plot A but also plot B.

Mr. Vane: The freehold plot B?

The Solicitor-General: Yes, the freehold plot B. I would add that if the Minister exercises his powers, then the provisions of the Acquisition of Land Assess-

ment of Compensation Act, 1919, come into force. I think that hon. Members were considerably disquieted at one stage of the consideration of this Bill by the fact that 1939 prices would be the only prices to apply. Of course, as hon. Members know, by an Amendment to the Town and Country Planning Bill, 1939 prices have now gone and present day prices have been substituted. Hon. Members will know from their reading of that Clause that there is what is called a vacant possession provision in that Amendment, that is to say, in the case of certain land you have to treat it as if it were subject to a notional tenancy excluding the element of vacant possession value. That does not apply to agricultural land, so virtually the position is that the Minister can acquire plot A and the freehold of plot B, but has to compensate at present day market values the various interests in not only plot A but plot B also. The interests are defined in the Land Clauses Act. In a short tenancy the only compensation is for disturbance, but otherwise the value is the market value which has to be paid to the various persons interested.

Major Mott-Radclyffe: Suppose the owner of plot A and the tenant of plot B under a long lease is the same person. If he is dispossessed of plot A by the Minister, and the Minister has powers of compulsory acquisition in respect of plot B as well, surely the owner of plot B is given an opportunity of taking plot B over into his own possession or of finding a suitable tenant like every other owner? Surely he is not debarred from being offered his own land merely because he has leased plot B to the owner of plot A?

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: May I, with the permission of the House, speak again? Following the Solicitor-General in his example, if plot A is owned by a man who at the same time has a long or a short lease of plot B, which he manages, and he is dispossessed of plot A for bad estate management, the Minister can acquire plot B also. I think the House ought to consider for a moment the lessor of plot B, who really has not sinned at all, but is the man who will have his land taken away from him. Although there might possibly be a case for that under a 999-year lease, no one can suggest that if you let a farm on a 10-year lease you surrender all interest in that


land. It is true you will be compensated by the new rate of compensation, but in the case of someone who has gone abroad on public service or Government business and is out of this country for 10 years it is quite normal to let, say, a home farm to a tenant on a 10-year lease while you are abroad. It really is monstrous if, while you are abroad, and the tenant mismanages the farm, you find your home taken away from you under the terms of Clause 16. I ask the learned Solicitor-General or the Minister to think again about this matter, because it is a point of which we were not aware, and it has come as rather a shock to some of us.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I must confess that after the first of the lucid expositions of the hon. and learned Gentleman I was almost persuaded that his interpretation was the correct one and I was happy. Then came the penetrating thought of my noble Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Lord Willoughby de Eresby) which has now opened up a new realm of doubt and difficulty. If we could have an answer to this question, we would be satisfied. The owner of plot B, as the noble Lord says, who has done nothing wrong at all but has given the leasehold tenancy to his tenant, surely is given the full rights of ownership in other parts of the Bill and is allowed to let his holding to somebody else and should not lose the freehold of it without being given any of the privileges that in other parts of the Bill are given freely. I cannot believe that is not the real interpretation, and I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman on considering it again will be able to confirm our view.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Sitting here I have been surprised at the complication which can be made of what is really the simplest language. In my view, with all respect to the Solicitor-General, he has been far too conscientious about this matter in condescending to give examples of cases that are purely hypothetical in this context. There must be a myriad of situations to which a provision of this kind could apply. I should like to tell the House what I think the Clause really means. I do not think it has any practical reference or application to any of the cases which have been mentioned. Subsection (3) cannot be carried further than its language permits. It is no use any hon.

Member going back to some other Section or trying to read between the lines of this Subsection something that is not there. The Subsection cannot be stretched beyond the bounds of its own connotation. It is an interpretational provision. It says:
References in this Part of this Act to the person by whom land is being managed shall be construed, where the management is under the control of an agent or servant, as references to the person by whom the agent or servant is employed.
That means that we might, and probably would, have someone in possession of land not being the owner of it at all. He would be a person with some short-term or occupational rights which have no nexus with the status of ownership at all. He would, probably, employ someone as a servant or agent, and put the control of the land with that servant or agent.
The Subsection seeks to make it clear that the person who has put the agent in control is to be liable, and that he cannot get out of his responsibility merely by saying that he is not the owner. It is a very sensible provision. Otherwise that person would not take the responsibility that he ought to take for bad estate management. All that the Subsection seeks to do is to add another facet, so that where you have not the owner in possession, and the person who is not the owner has employed some servant or agent to be in control of the land, the Minister can say that the agent or servant is employed by the person who is not the owner; and that the person not the owner is to be liable for the bad estate management.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Baldwin: We seem to have unearthed a mare's nest of considerable substance. I thought that the explanation given by the Solicitor-General was satisfactory, and I was on the point of getting up and thanking him for what he had said, but when he referred to a leaseholder of ten years being construed as a freeholder, something was raised of tremendous importance. A man may have served his country abroad and have leased his farm on a ten-year lease. The leaseholder is to be construed as a freeholder and the owner is to be dispossessed in his absence. This is a matter which needs reconsideration by the Minister and I hope that he will look at it again. The explanation relating to the Amendment


was satisfactory. The words of the Amendment might not be what are required to carry out what we have in mind. In that case it should be drafted so that the ordinary man in the street can understand it. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some further explanation on the point.

Brigadier Peto: I hope it is not right that an owner not actually in possession of his land because he happens to be away from this country, or a minor, can be dispossessed because the land was let to a tenant ten years ago or more. It seems to be a logical conclusion from that that no one in his senses will ever again let land for ten years. We shall have short leases, which will mean not so great a security. It has always been to the advantage of farmers as well as of tenants to have long leases. If an owner can be dispossessed through no fault of his own, or his trustees, if he is a minor, that is something which ought to be reconsidered.

Sir T. Dugdale: We cannot leave the position where it is. The House has got into considerable difficulties about this question. The Solicitor-General satisfied my hon. Friends in his first speech regarding the Amendment to Subsection (3). Then he made a remark about Clause 16, Subsections (1) and (2), to the effect that a leaseholder became a freeholder for the purposes of the Bill. We cannot believe that that is the intention of the Government. We ask either that the Solicitor-General should be allowed to make a further statement on the point or that he should consider the matter with his advisers and make certain that the wording of the Subsection does what the Government want it to do.
My noble Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Lord Willoughby de Eresby) raised a point of great substance when he pointed out that if a landowner was engaged, say, in the public service and was absent from this country, his land might be taken away from him by his tenant becoming a freeholder, although the landowner had had nothing whatever to do with it. The tenant, instead of being dealt with under Clause 13, which deals with good husbandry, will be dealt with under Clause 16, as a landowner. We cannot believe that that is the intention of the Government. We think there

must be some misunderstanding between the two sides of the House. We would very much like the Solicitor-General—indeed, we press him—to make a further statement on the matter and to say that he will look into the matter again before the further stages of the Bill.

The Solicitor-General: If I may with the permission of the House, I should like to reply to what has been said although I cannot add to what I have said, which was what I meant. I am willing to see whether the language can be made clearer, but I have stated the intention, and that intention was expressed in what I said before. Take two plots of land, A and B. Plot A is owned by Mr. Smith, who is also a person who, within the meaning of Subsection (2), manages B. He has an interest. The terms of his lease are such that he can be said under Subsection (2) to be managing the land. If he manages plot A badly, with the result that he comes under Clause 16 (1), one has to look at Subsection (2). Then the Minister may be satisfied that it is necessary for securing the proper management of plot A—and that makes all the difference—that plots A and B should be economically regarded as a single unit. Then, if the appropriate circumstances ensue, plot B can also be compulsorily purchased. The question is whether A and B must be viewed economically as a single unit. If the answer is "yes," and if the freeholder of A has managed it so badly that the powers under Clause 16 (1) arise, one has to go to Subsection (2), and if it is found that under Subsection (2) plots A and B are a single economic unit, one can say in regard to B that the owner of A is the manager, because he has an interest and his obligations in regard to it are such that he can be regarded as the manager, and the power arises in regard to plot B as well. Hon. Members opposite complain that the wording is unsatisfactory, and I will certainly make any endeavour I can to make this clear.

Mr. York: If plot B is occupied by a tenant from year to year, then this Subsection would not apply? If it is occupied by a tenant on a 14-year lease this Subsection would apply?

Hon. Members: May we have an answer?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I feel we are getting on to quite a different


point from that dealt with by the Amendment. It is true that the Solicitor-General raised it in the first instance, but I hope we shall now come to a decision on the Amendment.

Commander Maitland: When he first spoke, the Solicitor-General appeared to find considerable difficulty in defining exactly where the leaseholder had such a lease that he did in effect have an interest in management which would bring him under the Subsection which we are discussing. I want to know, where the leaseholder has that responsibility, what is the length of the lease? What is the minimum, and how is the status of the leaseholder decided?

Mr. Turner-Samuels: On a point of Order, has that question any relevance to this Clause? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I would like a Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because in my submission, it has no relevance at all.

The Solicitor-General: Would it assist if I repeat—as we have really got on to Clause 16—that we will attempt to improve the wording of Clause 16? Perhaps, subject to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that would be a satisfactory way of dealing with the matter.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I do not think the Solicitor-General appreciates the difficulty in which he has placed us. We thought we understood Clause 16, but the hon. and learned Gentleman has now, by reference to the Amendment under discussion, given two completely different interpretations. I submit, on a point of Order, that the House is entitled to know where we stand.

Mr. T. Williams: On that point of Order, are we entitled, on Clause 20, to go back to Clause 16?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: In my view, although it may have arisen indirectly, it would not be competent to discuss the meaning of Clause 16. Other opportunities will no doubt arise.

Sir T. Dugdale: The Solicitor-General has said that he is prepared to look at the wording of this Clause again before we reach a further stage, and I think that undertaking is a fair procedure.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Are you ruling on my point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have decided that it is not competent further to discuss the question of Clause 16, particularly in view of the assurance which the Solicitor-General has given.

Major Mott-Radclyffe: Will the Solicitor-General tell the House if he is really certain that the point at issue under this Clause would always be purely a point of fact, and that no appeal will he asked for under the interpretation he has given us?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that question arises.

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: When the Solicitor-General looks into the matter again, would he consider this point? He gave two interpretations of what constituted ownership of plot B. First he said that it was the length of lease; he thought it was about 10 years. In his last speech, he said it is the amount of obligation, or the terms of obligation as to what is the responsibility for fixed equipment. It is a complete shift of ground, and if the position were made clear we would know where we stand in this matter.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 27.—(Compensation for continuous adoption of special system of farming.)

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, in page 25, line 21, at the end, to insert:
(2) In proviso (b) to the said Subsection (1) (which provides that compensation under the Section shall not be payable unless the tenant has, before the termination of the tenancy, given notice of his intention to claim) for the words 'before the termination' there shall be substituted the words 'not later than one month before the termination'.
At present, under Section 9 of the 1923 Act, the tenant is only required in this sort of case to give notice before the termination of the tenancy. We think that at least he might give the landlord one month's notice of intention. We believe this is in accordance with the wishes of the Opposition.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 28.—(Compensation to landlord for deterioration of holding.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 25, line 37, after "that," to insert:


(a) compensation shall be so claimed only on the tenant's quitting the holding on the termination of the tenancy;
(b).
The object of this Amendment is to clarify a point which might arise on Clause 28 as at present worded. Clause 28 confers on the landlord a right of compensation for dilapidation. In Subsection (1) of Clause 28 it is perfectly clear that that right only arises and can only be enforced on the termination of a tenancy, but, when one looks at Subsection (3), one sees that the landlord is given the option, if he wants to do so, to rely on the written terms of the tenancy agreement. If he prefers, he can sue under the terms of the agreement itself. The object of this Amendment is to make it clear that if he elects to rely on his agreement instead of on his statutory right of compensation, he equally has to exercise that right at the end of the tenancy. Obviously, it would be a very difficult situation if in one case he could sue during the course of the tenancy, and in the other case he had to wait until the tenancy expired. As the Clause stands, it would be construed as giving both rights, and the Amendment is designed to make it clear that in both cases the right to enforce the claim for compensation only arises at the end of the period.

Amendment agreed to.

5.30 p.m.

The Paymaster-General (Mr. Marquand): I beg to move, in page 26, line 8, at the end, to insert "and situation."
In other parts of the Bill the phrase used is
having regard to the character and situation of the holding.
Owing to an oversight these words were left out of this Subsection, which will be improved if they are inserted.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Marquand: I beg to move, in page 26, line 12, after "has," to insert, "not later than one month."
This Amendment is being moved in response to representations made by the Opposition in Committee. If I may quote the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), he said:
I should have thought it would have been in the interests of the parties to have a time limit included—for example, 21 days prior to the expiration of the tenancy.

In reply my right hon. Friend said:
The question of a time limit is perhaps worth looking at."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 11th March, 1947; C. 426–7.]
We therefore propose a time limit of one month, following the suggestion of the hon. Member.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I wish to express my appreciation for the fruitfulness of the ground upon which the seed fell.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 29.—(Compensation for disturbance.)

Mr. Baldwin: I beg to move, in page 27, line 14, at the end, to insert:
Provided that compensation shall not be payable under this Section where the landlord has made to the tenant an offer in writing to withdraw the notice to quit and the tenant has unreasonably refused or failed to accept the offer.
Now that the Minister is taking some of the advice which was given to him upstairs to incorporate some of the 1923 Act, which was an excellent Measure, into the drafting of this Bill, I hope he will accept this Amendment. It is drawn from the 1923 Act, and it gives a landlord an opportunity of withdrawing a notice to quit if a tenant is given an offer within a reasonable time. "A reasonable time" has to be interpreted by the parties concerned. I think that the provision I am proposing might be quite useful to the tenant as well as to the landlord. If circumstances change after the notice has been given, and the landlord feels he can withdraw the notice, it might be to the tenant's interest to remain as tenant, and it might be of mutual advantage if this provision was inserted. It has worked very well in the 1923 Act, and I see no reason why it should not work here.

Colonel Clarke: I beg to second the Amendment.

The Solicitor-General: We really cannot accept this Amendment, because we take the view that it goes a good deal too far. What is the situation which one is considering? Clause 29 provides that the tenant, in the event of a notice to quit being given, is entitled to certain compensation for disturbance. The Amendment seeks to provide that where a landlord has served a notice on the tenant, but offers to withdraw the notice


even at almost the last minute—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Members say "No," but I think that must be the effect of the Amendment. The question is what is reasonable and if it is at any time which is sufficiently far away from the expiry of the notice to be entitled to be described as a reasonable time, the tenant must be bound by it or lose his compensation. That is not fair. If a landlord has given notice to quit, surely the tenant should be allowed to treat that as a serious, notice, which is intended to operate as such. If it is given, the tenant, as an ordinary prudent person, will begin to take steps to reorganise his existence, to find accommodation, and to think about how he is to move his equipment, etc. Surely, it would be most unfair on the tenant to expect him to be kept on tenterhooks in the expectation that the landlord might possibly at some time, before the expiration of the notice, change his mind and withdraw it.
It is not expecting too much of the landlord to ask that if he gives notice, he must make up his mind definitely one way or the other, before he does so, as, to whether he wishes that notice to operate If he gives notice I should have thought that he could be expected to make that decision. Any grown-up person should be able to take a decision of that sort, and if he gives notice, he should be held to it. If a tenant, perfectly willingly, agrees to the notice being withdrawn, that is another matter, but if, having received notice, he has begun to make his arrangements accordingly, then fairness and justice between the two parties requires that the landlord should be bound by his own act. That is the normal course of events in every other business relationship. If the tenant is prepared to release the landlord from the effect of his notice to quit, that, as I say, is another matter. I would ask the House not to accept this Amendment, because it is really most unfair to the tenant, and would give a loophole to the landlord, which fairness and justice do not require that he should have. Either the landlord wishes to give notice or he does not, and before he gives notice he should make up his mind one way or the other.

Mr. York: The Solicitor-General has got hold of the wrong end of the stick. The reasons for which notices are withdrawn are not the sort of reasons which he ap-

pears to have in mind. For example, in the case of a notice to quit which has been given in order that the owner's son may take over the farm, the son might die. In that event there is then, in many cases, no point in the owner of the farm taking it over. In that case he would make the tenant an offer to withdraw the notice. Where the unfairness might come in would be if there was any unreasonable delay. The definition of "unreasonable" in this connection is very simple. It has been working for 25 years or so with perfect satisfaction, and never to my knowledge has there been one quarrel about this point—[Interruption.] I qualified my statement by saying that in my experience, and I have a fairly wide experience in these matters, I have not come across one.
This Amendment is an inducement to the landlord to withdraw his notice where circumstances change. It is not really a serious argument to contend that once a man has made up his mind he should be made to stick to that decision. Under normal circumstances that is perfectly true, but the sort of instances in which this Amendment would be a valuable provision will arise because the circumstances have changed, and when circumstances change, surely it is an arguable proposition that there should be an inducement to the owner to say "Circumstances have changed. Would you like the farm back again?" The Government should justify why they are not continuing the provision of the 1923 Act in this case. The Solicitor-General did not attempt to justify that, except to say that it was high time that the owners knew their own minds when they gave their notice. That is not a very strong point. This provision has worked satisfactorily for a long time. It is an inducement which will not exist if this Amendment is not accepted. The Government would be well advised to think again about the matter and to re-enact that part of the provisions of Section 12 of the old Act.

Mr. Gallacher: This Amendment shows that hon. Members opposite, for all their protests, are not concerned about the tenant. Their one concern is the decaying landlord class of this country. What happens if a tenant gets notice to quit? Does he wait for the termination of the notice or does he im-


mediately attempt to get another means of livelihood. He does the latter thing right away. Even if the landlord did withdraw the notice, the tenant should still be entitled to compensation, because he is bound to bear a considerable amount of expense even though there may be only a few days between the notice being served and withdrawn. There is no thought in the minds of hon. Members opposite for the workers on the land. Every opportunity is taken by them to protect the land and to get the money. They take every chance of providing compensation at the expense of the Government for the landlord, but they are against compensation when it is the landlord who might have to pay. What a sorry miserable gang they are.

Major Legge-Bourke: The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) seems to be seeing red as characteristically as usual. His misrepresentation of the view of hon. Members on this side of the House was particularly marked. I should have said that one of the objects of this Bill is to try to keep things working smoothly between the landlord and the tenant.

Mr. Gallacher: Get rid of the landlord

Major Legge-Bourke: This Amendment should help the good relations between landlord and tenant. In certain cases the tenant may be very reluctant to go and only too glad to be allowed to stay on.

Mr. Gallacher: The question does not arise.

Major Legge-Bourke: The Solicitor-General made great play with the meaning of the word "reasonable." The meaning is shown fairly clearly in Clauses 12 and 14. One can see how the word is being used in this Bill where it says:
Any person authorised by the Minister in that behalf may at all reasonable times enter upon the land …
Yet, according to the Solicitor-General, we do not know what the word "reasonable" means. The Solicitor-General said that nobody knew what the word meant when it was pointed out that this notice would be given or withdrawn only within a reasonable time. We have the word mentioned again in Clause 14 (8) which says:

Where … the Minister is satisfied that it is reasonable that the said time should be extended.
The Bill seems to have "reasonable" running through it the whole time. I should have thought that what was sauce for the Government was also sauce for the Opposition.

5.45 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I hope the Minister will consider this discussion between now and the final passage of the Bill. The Solicitor-General has not really shown any cause why this Amendment should not be made. It has been the law for a quarter of a century. Experience shows that it has met certain cases which have arisen. Obviously, it is not a matter which comes up every day. What the Solicitor-General says is that the grown up person should be able to make up his mind. When he has given notice, he should stick to it; he should have known exactly what was wanted. For a Member of this Government, a Government which in 48 hours changed its mind on one of the most vital issues, to come before the House in this Session, to say that any reasonable grown up person should make up his mind—well, that settles that.

Amendment negatived.

Major Wise: I beg to move, in page 27, line 30, to leave out from "to," to "without," in line 32, and to insert:
one year's average profit arising from the occupation of the holding as assessed for Income Tax purposes based on the assessments of the three Income Tax years immediately preceding the date of quitting the holding and in the event of such assessments covering the occupation of two or more holdings they shall be divided and apportioned for the purposes of this Subsection according to the acreage of each such holding and in that case one year's average profit as aforesaid shall be taken to be the apportioned amount applicable to the holding for which the notice to quit has become operative and to which this Subsection thus applies.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: At the same time hon. Members can discuss the following two Amendments which stand in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for King's Lynn (Major Wise):
In page 27, line 35, leave out "one year's rent," and insert:
one year's average profit as aforesaid.


In page 27, line 45, at end, insert:
at the rate at which rent was payable immediately before the termination of the tenancy or one year's average profit as aforesaid whichever is the greater.

Major Wise: The Minister has been open to a good deal of frontal attack and I hope that, as this Amendment is proposed from this side of the House, he will not think that he is being attacked in the rear. The object of this Amendment is to amend the 1923 Act. That Act is embodied in this Bill so far as it affects claims for compensation for disturbance. The Amendment seeks to alter the amounts from one year's rent to one year's average profit. Under the 1923 Act, if a tenant's claim for compensation for disturbance is upheld, it is possible for him to claim from his landlord the amount of one year's rent if he can prove loss or expense directly attributable to his quitting. On the other hand, if he considers that amount is not sufficient, he is enabled to claim a higher amount up to two years' rent with the proviso that he must afford the landlord an opportunity of making a valuation of the stocks and other things which he wishes to sell or to remove.
Many things have happened in farming since the 1923 Act was passed. Farming is now a business. It is recognised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as being a business in addition to being a way of life. When the 1923 Act was passed, tax was payable by the farmer under Schedule B on one year's annual value. Previous to that the farmer was assessed on Schedule B on one-third of the rent. In 1923 a farmer was assessed on one year's annual value. Later it reached two years' annual value, and now it is on a different basis altogether. The position has arisen that farming has become such a business—possibly a profitable business—that it is laid down in the Finance Acts that if the rent of the farm is under £100 a year the farmer pays on the basis of three years' rent. If it is more than £100 a year, then he produces accounts and pays according to his profits.
The position which I take up is that, if the State or the owner of land is in a position to disturb a tenant and substantiate a notice to quit, he should be able to claim compensation on the basis of the profit which he either makes or the State

presumes he makes. Therefore, for the purpose of this Amendment, I am suggesting that the average of the previous three years' Income Tax assessments should be taken. The position may arise, and it is one of some importance, that the landlord may be able to substantiate a notice to quit, and the occupier is in a position to claim for disturbance. The occupier goes out, the landowner pays the one year's rent under the existing law and the disturbance claim. The owner occupies it for a short time, then sells it with vacant possession. The farmer has lost his livelihood and is faced with the difficulty of obtaining another farm, which is apparent today to many hon. Members of this House, or will be in the near future. The farmer has been compensated to the extent of one year's annual value, and the landowner has cashed in on possibly five or possibly more years' annual value by reason of vacant possession. That position may easily arise.
Let us take the position with regard to the State. Under this Bill, and under other Bills, the State is in a position to acquire land for various purposes—research, development, experiment, smallholdings and for other reasons. The State goes to the landowner and purchases a farm, subject to the tenancy. The purchase is completed, and then the State steps in and gives the tenant notice to quit, also agreeing, under this Bill, to pay a disturbance claim. Again, the tenant loses his livelihood. The State has purchased the land at a fair price, subject to the tenancy, but compensates the tenant only on a rental basis. In other operations, where the State disturbs businesses, compensation is paid on a profits basis, and, if compensation can be paid to other businesses on a profit basis, then the view I hold is that the State should compensate the farming community, which is a business community, also on a profits basis.
I hope this Amendment will find favour with the Minister. He may say, as I think perhaps he will, that neither the National Farmers' Union nor the professional organisations have desired any particular alteration to the 1923 Act in regard to compensation, but the future is before us, and very many State purchases of land will come into operation. The desire which I have in moving this Amendment is that there should be no


possible hardship on a tenant or an occupier of land who is disturbed for the purposes of the State or for the purposes which may arise in regard to ownership.

Mr. Gerald Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what happens if the farmer has been making a loss, as he may well do in the future? Will he pay compensation to the State—or the landlord?

Major Wise: It is quite possible that, for one year, a farmer may make a loss, but the Amendment suggests that the average of the three years' Income Tax assessments should be taken. We hope that this Bill will prevent farmers making losses, and we do not envisage that losses should be made in agriculture. We look forward to steady agricultural prosperity.

Mr. Alpass: I beg to second the Amendment.
In doing so, I claim that I am living up to my desire to do justice to the farmers of this country, and I am quite sure that, if hon. Members on the other side are sincere in the many professions which they have made regarding the interests of farming, they will also give it their unstinted support. This Amendment will only affect the good farmers. The bad farmers cannot claim compensation for disturbance. If this Bill, with its security of tenure Clauses, is accepted by the House, the only occasion on which a good farmer can be dispossessed, and therefore claim compensation, will be if the land is required for a national or other public purpose. I suggest that, if for this purpose a good farmer is to be dispossessed, he should not be made to suffer a financial loss.
It is said that perhaps the farmers do not want this Amendment, but my experience proves exactly the contrary. I have addressed meetings of the National Farmers' Union in my own constituency—very large meetings, the largest ever held in the history of the Union. That was only natural, because I was explaining this Bill. At every meeting, questions have been put to me by people who have been affected and will be affected by disturbance. In my constituency we have had the construction of the great runway for the "Brabazon," and we have had farmers dispossessed on that account. We also contemplate new roads through

the middle of my division to the new Severn Bridge, and the good farmers there are very anxious about what is going to happen to them.
We cannot argue that if land is required, for a national purpose it shall not be taken, but we do say that a man whose living is taken from him on that account shall be fully, fairly and amply compensated. Other people are compensated when their businesses are taken from them on the basis of their profits. I am surprised that hon. Members on the other side should talk about farmers making losses. I believe that time has long since gone by. If this Measure is properly operated, it will be their own fault if they do make losses. I was talking the other day to a prominent farmer in my division, who is a member of the county executive committee, and who holds very strong views, and he said "A man must be, well, not a wise man, but the very opposite, if he cannot make a profit, and he has no business to be a farmer if he cannot." This Bill will assure to the farmer a reasonable living and a profit. We maintain that it is only elementary justice that if for State or public purposes he is dispossessed, he should not suffer a financial loss. I feel sure that the Minister, with his usual desire to be fair and just to farmers and tenants, and his desire to see them inspired with confidence and putting their best into the work, will accept the Amendment. I am equally sure that if hon. Members opposite are true to what they profess when they go to their constituencies, they also will give this Amendment their support.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment. I am sure that neither of my hon. Friends is terribly disappointed, or, at least, terribly surprised at my attitude, in view of what I said on this sort of Amendment in Standing Committee. It is true that the matter was discussed in Committee, and that I made a statement there, and, in fairness to my hon. Friends, I have seriously thought about the matter since then, but I am bound to confess that I see no justification for making the change indicated in the Amendment. It is clear that the object of the Amendment is to obtain for the person who is dispossessed or disturbed greater compensation than has been his lot in the past. The present pro-


cedure started in 1923, but it does not follow that everything that started in 1923 is the right thing. Indeed, we have just refused to accept a proposal by hon. Members opposite to insert in this Bill something that was in the 1923 Act. The suggestion of my hon. Friends that we should make a change here is not, however so far as I have been able to ascertain, in the interests of agriculture. After all, rentals are reasonably convenient yardsticks, and to try to substitute an average of the annual profit over a period of three years would introduce many great complications.
Only about 50 per cent. of the farmers in this country pay Income Tax on profits under Schedule D. The profits basis for taxation is automatically applicable only to farms with a rental of over £100 a year, or to market garden holdings. Where it is less than £100, the tenant has the choice of an assessment based on profits, or three times the rental value. Moreover, Income Tax is based upon profits in the previous financial year, and not in the year in which the tenant would quit. Therefore, the profits for the last year of farming by the tenant would not be known, and the three years principle suggested in the Amendment could not be operated. Apart from these very practical difficulties, the annual profit procedure might well turn out to be injurious to the tenant. For instance, if one assumed that there were two very bad years, compensation might be very tiny indeed.

Mr. Alpass: The right hon. Gentleman does not anticipate that.

Mr. Williams: I did not anticipate the snow and ice this year and the loss of 4,500,000 sheep and 60,000 or 70,000 cattle; I did not anticipate the floods in the Fens, but, unfortunately, they came. It might well be that in one year a person with three lucky years behind him might come out on top, but it could happen the other way round. It is true that the Amendment also suggests that the maximum compensation should be either two years' rent or one year's average profit, whichever is the greater, but, in order to obtain compensation above the minimum, a man is required to prove additional loss over and above the minimum, and under provisos (b) and (c) of Subsection (2), he must give the landlord a reasonable opportunity of making a valuation of his goods and implements, and must give

notice to the landlord that he intends to make such a claim at least a month before the termination of the tenancy. In this type of case, therefore, the tenant would be put to a considerable amount of trouble. There would certainly be many disputes and infinitely more arbitrations than there are at present.
I submit to my hon. Friends that one year's rent may not be a strictly arithmetical, reasonable figure for compensation, but I submit also that an average year's profit covering the past three years may likewise not be an arithmetical, fair and reasonable amount of compensation. On the whole, therefore, I think that the rent, which is supposed to be a fair reflection of profitability, is the right thing. If there had been any extensive demand on the part of the farming community for this change, I am sure that representations would have been made to me during the past 12 months when we have been preparing this Measure. No such representations have been made, and I can only conclude that the fact that we are providing in the next Clause security of tenure satisfies the farming industry that we are going as far as is necessary in all the circumstances. In view of the complications that would arise from an endeavour to take a three years' average of profits and the difficulties that would ensue, I hope my hon. Friends will see fit to leave the matter where it is, because I think that will give the maximum contentment to those who are involved.

Mr. Baldwin: I rise mainly to irritate the hon. Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass) and the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) by defending the tenant farmer. I always find the landowners and farmers in the Bristol area very different from those in the rest of England. This is a matter that has been discussed among tenant farmers for some years. The majority of them realise that there would be many anomalies and hardships if profits were made the basis for computing compensation for disturbance.
Suppose, for instance, that last year was the first year that a man went on to a farm, and that he had a disastrous harvest. This year he would have had the floods and the snows, and would have lost many sheep and cattle. By the end of this year he would probably not be farming as well as he ought to do. The landlord could then ask for a certificate


from a war agricultural committee and would not have much difficulty in proving that he could improve the output of that farm. The result would be that the tenant would be given notice to quit, and would probably get no compensation.

Mr. Alpass: This would not apply at all.

Mr. Baldwin: The question of profits is something about which the Minister knows more than does the hon. Member for Thornbury. The Minister knows quite well that profits do not exist to the extent that the hon. Gentleman thinks they do. I think that more hardship would be caused if this Amendment were adopted.

Mr. Alpass: The hon. Member said that the landlord would be able to get the tenant out. We are not advocating a claim for compensation by the bad tenant; it is only good tenants who, under the Bill, would be entitled to claim compensation.

Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: I hope the Minister, and particularly the agricultural community, will think a little more about this point. I believe there is justification for basing compensation on profits, and that it is a more reasonable basis than that of rent. With the increased intensity of farming the rent has become a much less important factor than it was at one time, and especially is that true of the type of farming with which I am familiar, where the values of livestock, buildings, equipment and wages have risen. Moreover, the differences between types of farming are increasing. One farmer may farm much more intensively than another, although they may pay similar rents. Therefore, one farmer's profits may be much larger than those of another, and the disturbance caused to his life may be much greater. For instance, a poultry farmer with a very small piece of land may carry on a business with a big turnover and large profits. There are other types of farms where the rent is no longer a fair basis on which to judge the scale of a man's farming. Therefore, I hope the farming community will think about this question and consider whether the introduction of the element of profit would be a fairer basis for compensation.
I appreciate the Minister's difficulties. I think there would be a way out of those

difficulties, which would be to the advantage of the good farmer and of the farmer who is making the very best use of his land. It would be to give an option of being compensated on either rent or profits. That would safeguard the case referred to by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) of the bad year, or a series of bad years. It would prevent a landlord from taking advantage of such a situation and getting rid of a tenant without paying him much compensation. It would safeguard the man who was not farming so profitably as others. If a tenant had the option of claiming on a profit basis such as is set out in this Amendment, it would be a great safeguard to the progressive and energetic man with numerous sidelines on his farm, and who, if he lost the farm, would have infinite difficulty in finding another opportunity of carrying out the same undertaking.

Amendment negatived.

6.15 p.m.

Colonel Clarke: I beg to move, in page 28, line 20, at the end, to insert:
(5) Compensation shall not be payable under this Section in the case of a permanent pasture which the landlord has been in the habit of letting annually for seasonal grazing and which has, since the third day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, and before the date when this part of this Act comes into operation, been let to a tenant for a definite and limited period for cultivation as arable land, on the condition that the tenant shall, along with the last or waygoing crops, sow permanent seeds.
I am afraid I must again call the attention of the Committee to the 1923 Act. This Amendment is designed to deal with certain cases that may arise as a result of the war, and I have no doubt the Minister will recognise in the Amendment words similar to those which appear in Section 12 (7, f) of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, which contains similar provisions to meet the same cases that arose out of the 1914–18 war. Exceptional treatment was accorded to certain land. Permanent pasture, in order to meet war requirements for growing corn, was broken up as a temporary measure, but where that was done arrangements were made with the tenant whereby it was only to be for a limited period—for the period of the war or for a certain number of years. At the end of that time, it was to be handed back for its ordinary use as permanent


pasture or seasonal grazing, and, before it was handed back, with the last or way-going crop should be sown permanent seeds. If this Amendment is accepted, we shall only be doing the same thing as was done at the end of the first world war, and which then worked satisfactorily and was a help to all concerned.

Mr. John Morrison: I beg to second the Amendment

Mr. T. Williams: As the hon and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) has said, it would be unfair to penalise a landlord in the case to which he referred; but there is no need for the insertion of the proposed words, since the matter was dealt with under Section 26 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940, as amended by Section 14 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1943 Those Sections provide that if after the commencement of the 1940 Act, and before the end of the war period, which is 31st December, 1947, a contract of tenancy has been made for a term not exceeding eight years, and the contract provides that the land shall be cultivated as arable land, then if immediately before the 1940 Act the land was not being used for agriculture, or was being used for agriculture but was let on less than an annual tenancy—for example, seasonal grazing—or consisted of permanent pasture and was occupied by the landlord, the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, shall not apply to such a contract of tenancy. Since under Clause 44 (1) of the Bill, Part III is to he construed as one with the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, this means that Part III of this Bill and the 1923 Act will not apply to such contracts of tenancy. Therefore, in these circumstances the landlord cannot be penalised because his seasonal grazing has been ploughed up.

Colonel Clarke: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that explanation, which satisfies the point I have raised, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

Amendment made: In page 28, line 38, leave out "that Section," and insert "the said Section fourteen"—[Mr. T. Williams.]

CLAUSE 30.—(Restrictions on termination by notice of tenancies of holdings.)

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, in page 29, line 40, to leave out from "been," to "or." in line 42, and to insert:
granted on an application made under the enactments relating to town and country planning.
This Amendment, and the next Amendment, which is consequential, are designed to bring paragraph (c) of Clause 30 (2) into line with the new provisions relating to town and country planning contained in the Town and Country Planning Bill It deals with the case where agricultural land is required for some non agricultural use and application is made under the town and country planning legislation for permission to use agricultural land for non agricultural purposes, and that permission is given. It would clearly be wrong, in that case, when notice to quit is given, to reconsider the whole question under Clause 30. Agricultural considerations will have been taken into account when the decision to grant planning permission was reached. In such a case the Minister's consent to the notice to quit should not be required. The last two and a hall lines of Subsection (2) deal with certain other cases where planning permission is not required, but where it would nevertheless be wrong for the Minister's consent to be required—where, for example, a Private Act of Parliament may confer on a local authority or a statutory undertaker the right to buy and develop a certain area of land for some non-agricultural purpose, and planning consent may be unnecessary since specific Parliamentary approval has been given to the proposal. In cases of that description, of course, there would be Departmental discussions before any decisions were reached. Therefore, there is no point in the Minister's consent to a notice being required in respect of land to be used for non agricultural purposes on the lines I have indicated.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 29, line 43, leave out from first "of," to "such," in line 44, and insert "any provisions of those enactments)."—[Mr. T. Williams.]

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. T. WILLIAMS: In page 30, line 1, leave out Subsections (3) and (4), and insert:


(3) Without predudice to the discretion of the Minister in a case falling within paragraphs (a) to (d) of this Subsection the Minister shall withhold his consent under the Section to the operation of a notice to quit unless he is satisfied—

(a) that the carrying out of the purpose for which the landlord proposes to terminate the tenancy is desirable in the interests of efficient farming; or
(b) that the carrying out thereof is otherwise desirable for the purposes of agricultural research, education, experiment or demonstration or for the purposes of the enactments relating to smallholdings or allotments; or
(c) that by reason of the purpose for which the interest of the landlord was held immediately before the creation of the tenancy to which the notice to quit relates, greater hardship would be caused by the Minister's withholding than by his granting his consent to the operation of the notice; or
(d) that the landlord proposes to terminate the tenancy for the purpose of the land being used for a use, other than for agriculture, not falling within paragraph (c) of the last foregoing Subsection:
Provided that in the case of a tenancy created after the commencement of this Part of this Act paragraph (c) of this Subsection shall not have effect in relation to the termination of the tenancy unless it is so provided by a written contract of tenancy, specifying the purpose referred to in that paragraph.

Captain Crookshank: On a point of Order Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I assume that the right hon. Gentleman is about to move the Amendment as it is printed on the Order Paper. Would it be possible for the Question to leave out Subsections (3) and (4) to be put separately? I am not quite sure whether the new Amendment covers all the points we on this side have in mind. We may want some discussion on the leaving out of the Subsections. It would seem to me to be quite feasible, because these are quite different points.

Mr. T. Williams: I do not think it would be possible to have two separate discussions, since Subsection (4) is involved in the Amendment. Indeed, the Amendment involves the deletion of Subsections (3) and (4). Therefore, I suggest that whatever discussion there may be should be on the Amendment as printed on the Order Paper.

Captain Crookshank: I agree with the Minister that we do not want two discussions, but owing to the rather complicated language of his proposed new Subsection, I am not certain that he is covering all the

points covered by the present Subsection (4). I want merely to safeguard the position, so that if it turns out that we wish to make representations about the present Subsection (4), we shall be free to do so. We may wish to make representations that that Subsection should remain. It is only in case the Minister's explanation is not satisfactory that we want to safeguard our position.

Mr. T. Williams: I think we could take the Amendment to leave out Subsections (3) and (4), and in that way save any point the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would care to put later.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The Amendment to leave out Subsections (3) and (4) will be put as a separate question.

Captain Crookshank: That is the point I was making. I do not see any necessity for putting it in the manner in which it is proposed. I should have thought we could have had a discussion on leaving out the Subsections, if necessary.

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, in page 30, line. 1, to leave out Subsections (3) and (4).
I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will find that this Amendment will really cover the point he has in mind; or, at least, I hope it may. This wording alters the provision with regard to hardship, and I think that, to that extent, he will find we have tried to deal with the point. In Committee there was a very comprehensive Debate on Clause 30, and it was felt, with few exceptions, that Subsection (3) was too tightly drawn, so that there would be few opportunities for fresh young blood to enter the industry as farmers, and that there might be cases where the Minister's discretion should be exercised. After practically a whole morning's Debate, I undertook to reexamine this Clause to see whether, while providing for the largest possible measure of security of tenure—certainly a much larger security of tenure than ever before—we could so loosen the Clause as to deal with cases that might arise from time to time. This new Subsection (3) widens, to some extent, the Minister's power to grant consent to notices to quit. At present, Subsection (3) requires the Minister to withhold consent unless he is satisfied that there would be more efficient use


of the land for agriculture. The only other case where he could give consent would be under the present Subsection (4), to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred. The present provisions would not give the Minister discretion where it would admittedly cause greater hardship to the landlord to withhold consent than it would to the tenant to grant consent to the notice to quit.
The cases where the Minster will be given discretion are set out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the proposed new Subsection. Paragraph (a) corresponds broadly to the present Subsection (3) although it is wider. Under the new paragraph (a), the Minister will have discretion to grant consent if he is satisfied that it will be in the interests of efficient farming. It is in wider terms than that of the individual holding in the present Subsection (3). For example, it may be that the landlord wishes to let his land to a young, potentially efficient farmer, but one who has not yet been an actual farmer, although he has had sufficient experience as a skilled worker, perhaps as a skilled agent, perhaps as a skilled manager. Yet, because he cannot prove that he is a skilled farmer, then, under the present Subsection (3) no matter how good he may be, the Minister would not have power to give consent to a notice to quit. Therefore, in such a case there would be no possibility of that individual securing a farm. The present Subsection would allow no discretion. The proposed widening of the Subsection would enable young blood to enter the industry.

Mr. Alpass: I am sorry to interrupt, but this is an extremely important part of the Bill, and I ask my right hon. Friend to amplify this point, and to explain its full effect. He said it would not allow a young farmer with experience and skill to come into farming. Is not that in conflict with the wording of the Bill, where it says:
would be likely to result in the more efficient use for agriculture of the land comprised in the holding"?

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Williams: That would not be so. Take the case of an old man. I do not wish to cast any reflection on age in using this example when my hon. Friend asks me to amplify what I am saying. Take the case of a person of 73 or 74 years of age; physically he is perhaps well past

his best, but it may be that to date he has been reasonably efficient within his area. Then along comes some younger man of, say, 40 years of age, who started to work on the land when he was 14, and will obviously make a successful farmer. The landowner may want to make a change; he knows the old boy is well past his best, and he gives him notice to quit because he is satisfied that the new tenant, the man of 40, with his practical experience of farming, will farm the land better, although at that moment it could not be definitely proved that he was a more efficient person than the farmer of 73 or 74. I have put up a hypothetical case, and I hope my hon. Friend will appreciate that I have no particular person or persons in mind. I am simply giving him an example.

Mr. Alpass: The Minister would first have to be satisfied that the change of tenancy
would be likely to result in the more efficient use for agriculture of the land.

Mr. Williams: Yes.

Mr. Alpass: That would apply in the case he has just mentioned. If he was not satisfied that the young man, with all this experience and knowledge, would not make a better farmer than the old man, there is no reason for disturbing the old man.

Mr. Williams: That is, of course, a matter of opinion. Under the terms of the Subsection as it stands I should have no power to give consent, because I could not prove that the person referred to, who so far perhaps had never been a farmer, would be a more efficient farmer than the other.

Mr. Alpass: Or would be more likely to be.

Mr. Williams: That is to say would make more efficient use of the land than the other person. That is the sort of example one must bear in mind. Another type of case in which the Minister could give consent under the new paragraph (a) is where a farmer was reasonably efficient on his own farm but was perhaps negligent and careless in other ways, and might even cause inefficiency on adjoining farms: for instance, if he failed to keep his stock under control, and allowed his stock to stray among neighbouring stock, and may even have helped to


scatter disease, despite the fact that on his own particular area of land he was a reasonably efficient type of person. If such a person did exist he could become a menace to neighbouring farms, and in that case would hate an injurious effect on farming as a whole. Under this Amendment the Minister would have some discretion. It should be emphasised that the governing factor in all these cases will be efficient farming.
Paragraph (b) deals with agricultural research, education and experiment on smallholdings. Under Subsection (3) it would be difficult to prove that the land would be more efficiently used, at least for a time. This paragraph also enables a smallholding authority to give notice to quit to an existing smallholder who has taken on a great deal of land other than his smallholding, and has turned himself into a large farmer, thus depriving another would-be smallholder of his chance.
Paragraph (c) deals with cases of hardship—and here I come to the point raised by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman—where before creating a tenancy the landlord had some particular object in mind, and later on gave notice to quit in order to carry out that purpose. Under paragraph (c) the Minister may give or withhold consent on the basis of hardship. The governing factor here will be the landlord's intentions before creating the tenancy. That would cover such cases where the landlord purchased the land with the idea of farming himself, or perhaps of giving it to a member of his family. More than once the case has been quoted—and I think it is a reasonable case—where during the war a farmer purchased an area of land for a son who was in the Services; he did not want to farm it himself, but anticipated that when the boy returned—perhaps with practical knowledge of farming—he would be able to take over the farm there and then. In that case he would let the farm until his son returned, and when he wants it for his son I do not think it would be unreasonable for the Minister to be permitted to give consent. There is also the case where a farmer-owner becomes ill, and creates a tenancy for perhaps two or three years—and there may be many current cases now—anticipating that should his health be restored he will return ultimately to his farm and will take

over the tenancy. These are cases in which the Minister's discretion would be based upon the hardship between landowner and tenant, and genuine hardship would obviously have to be proved.
I should draw attention to the proviso in that connection. Where tenancies are created after Part III comes into operation, paragraph (c) will be of no assistance to the person who is ill and creates a tenancy, and moves off to the Riviera, or anywhere else, to recuperate unless he inserts a provision in the tenancy agreement setting out his intentions. He would have to make sure of the future in his tenancy agreement, since he could not rely on paragraph (c). Paragraph (d) deals with cases where agricultural land is wanted for non-agricultural purposes: for example, private afforestation. If the landowner gives notice to quit in order to use the land for afforestation and the Minister thinks that is a desirable proposition, he would have discretion to grant consent. The effect of the new Subsection is to widen the range of cases in which the Minister can give consent. It has been drafted to cover only those specific types of cases to which I have referred, where we think the Minister should have discretion. It does not necessarily mean that he would give his consent in every case. Obviously, each case would be dealt with on its merits.
I wish to say a few words about the Amendment to my proposed Amendment, standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass)— in line 5, after "farming," to insert:
of the land comprised in the holding for which notice has been served.
He, I know, feels very acutely on the question of security of tenure, as a result of long experience in the countryside His Amendment would restrict the Minister's discretion to an absolute minimum. It would remove any possible discretion to deal with cases of hardship, and the other cases to which reference has been made. I ask the House to remember that the present position is, that where the landlord wishes to give the tenant notice to quit 12 months' compensation is the tenant's only reward, and at the end of 12 months the tenant must go. In the future there will be security of tenure, except in the cases referred to in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the


new Subsection. Assuming that the landlord gives notice to quit and the tenant objects to that notice to quit, for the first time the tenant will have access to the Minister, and will be able to appeal to him to refuse his consent in respect of a notice to quit. Assuming that the Minister acts unfairly or unreasonably in the view of the tenant, the tenant will have a further appeal to the agricultural land tribunal. This Subsection will enable the Minister to deal with cases of hardship, and the other types of case to which I have referred. The tenant will have a greater sense of security than he has ever enjoyed before, and I hope, since we are all anxious to see new blood enter the industry and to see the best type of person farming the land, that we shall be willing to give this larger measure of security to tenant farmers, while at the same time preserving sufficient discretion to deal with the types of case to which I have referred.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that I am not quite sure what is the position in regard to discussing this Amendment.

Captain Crookshank: I think you are referring, Mr. Speaker, to the point of Order which I put to your predecessor.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will explain his point of Order to me.

Captain Crookshank: I do not wish to pursue it now, but it related to the intentions of the Government in regard to this new Subsection. We merely wanted to safeguard our position.
I listened with great attention to what the right hon. Gentleman had to say, and it seems, while giving himself greater discretions than was the case under Subsections (3) and (4), he has made it easier to deal with one or two of the problems which worried us considerably when we were considering this Clause at an earlier stage. We have always been anxious that there should be no undue difficulty put in the way of the young man, if you are still young at 40, which is the age mentioned by the Minister. We are anxious that young men should have an opportunity to make their way up and eventually start off on their own. We were afraid that the structure of the Bill was so rigid that it would be very difficult for people, through the years, to make the upward climb, which we consider to be absolutely vital.
The Minister has made the position a little more fluid and a little more easy in the direction in which we were particularly interested. Instead of Subsection (4) he is now proposing to insert paragraph (c). He is dealing rather differently with the case of a person who has bought land with the idea of passing it on to some member of his family. The position is, I think, somewhat better: previously the Minister could not intervene if a case of this kind had occurred before 1947. It was sufficient to satisfy the Minister that a man had bought the land for his son or grandson, that meantime the land was being farmed for him, but that he wanted it back. The Minister has now changed that. The wording of the Subsection is not very clear. As I understand it, there will be no prescriptive right in a case of that kind, but it will be within the Minister's discretion to decide whether it is a greater hardship for a man not to be able to resume farming in order to give the land to his son, than in the case of the tenant.
6.45 p.m.
It will be a difficult discretion to exercise, but at any rate it does not tie it down to any particular year or generation. Generally speaking, the Minister is to decide whether or not the father or the grandfather is to be able to carry out his pre-determined purpose. When we first saw this Subsection we were not clear about its intentions, or whether this was the right way to handle the problem. It has come before us at rather a late stage, but subject to any comments my hon. Friends may wish to make, I think the Minister has made an improvement. It is as well that he should have seen the important point of not tying up these tenancies in such a way that it would be impossible to go forward year by year. It will be a difficult discretion to exercise, and will be the old question of life of the experienced old man and the young man who has to win his spurs. Having heard the Minister, I think he has made an improvement in the Bill by introducing this Amendment.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is to leave out Subsections (3) and (4). I would make the suggestion to the House that we delete the Subsections and then deal with the Amendment to insert the new Subsection (3).

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, in page 30, line 1, to insert:
(3) Without prejudice to the discretion of the Minister in a case falling within paragraphs (a) to (d) of this Subsection, the Minister shall withhold his consent under this Section to the operation of a notice to quit unless he is satisfied—

(a) that the carrying out of the purpose for which the landlord proposes to terminate the tenancy is desirable in the interests of efficient farming; or
(b) that the carrying out thereof is otherwise desirable for the purposes of agricultural research, education, experiment or demonstration or for the purposes of the enactments relating to small holdings or allotments; or
(c) that by reason of the purpose for which the interest of the landlord was held immediately before the creation of the tenancy to which the notice to quit relates, greater hardship would be caused by the Minister's withholding than by his granting his consent to the operation of the notice; or
(d) that the landlord proposes to terminate the tenancy for the purpose of the land being used for a use, other than for agriculture, not falling within paragraph (c) of the last foregoing Subsection:
Provided that in the case of a tenancy created after the commencement of this Part of this Act paragraph (c) of this Subsection shall not have effect in relation to the termination of the tenancy unless it is so provided by a written contract of tenancy, specifying the purpose referred to in that paragraph.

Mr. Vane: While welcoming this encouragement to people to set up business on their own instead of buying them out, I feel that paragraph (c) could be made to serve its purpose better if the Minister would take into account the elastic nature of the farming system in this country. As the Minister knows, one of the differences between a country where peasant proprietorship rules and a country where you have owner-occupiers and tenants, is that in the latter case large numbers of tenant farmers invest capital in their farms while in the prime of their life, and then, when they are older, look out for a smaller place to purchase with the idea of their sons carrying on the larger farm. One might have gathered that paragraph (c) covered that contingency. But it can only cover it where the man purchases a farm with vacant possession. In the great majority of cases, farms are put on to the market subject to occupation by the existing tenant.
There will be a large measure of dissatisfaction among tenant farmers when they discover that if they wish to do what their fathers have done, what has been their ambition for a long time, they must find a place with vacant possession. The Minister is putting a still greater premium on any land which reaches the market with vacant possession. Perhaps in another place the Government might consider omitting some of the words in paragraph (c), while still leaving the Minister complete discretion to ensure that no hardship is done either to one party or the other.

Mr. W. Roberts: I am very anxious to see a high degree of security of tenure for the farmer. There are two substantial alterations which the Minister is proposing to make, and which seem to be of rather doubtful value. Paragraph (c) provides that a man who buys a farm for his son will be able to get the permission of the Minister to give the sitting tenant notice to quit if he fulfils certain conditions. I understand that even if a man buys a farm and recognises the tenant of the farm, thereby creating a tenancy with regard to the new ownership, the Minister might give permission for him to take possession of the farm if it is the man's intention that his son should farm it.

Mr. T. Williams: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the proviso to the new Subsection, he will find that it says:
Provided that in the case of a tenancy created after the commencement of this Part of this Act paragraph (c) of this Subsection shall not have effect in relation to the termination of the tenancy unless it is so provided by a written contract of tenancy, specifying the purpose referred to in that paragraph.
That is why I said that after the commencement of this Act paragraph (c) will be of no value to the person who purchases land in future unless he specifies his intentions in the written contract of tenancy.

Mr. Roberts: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that further explanation, which I had not altogether grasped. The scope of the Minister's discretion is not increased with regard to the date of the purchase of the land.

Mr. T. Williams: Mr. T. Williamsindicated assent.

Mr. Roberts: That disposes of the first point I wanted to raise, and I now come to the second. In paragraph (a) there is the phrase, "in the interest of efficient


farming." The Minister gave two examples where he considered that the new wording would give him more latitude than the old. One was the case of the up and coming young man who might replace the older man. I take it that the practice of the Minister and his agents, in considering this matter in connection with wartime regulations, has been to compare farms. If the sitting tenant was a bad farmer, and the proposed new tenant was a good farmer, they judged that it was in the interests of efficiency that permission should be given to terminate the old tenancy.

Mrs. Lean Manning: The character of the man came into it.

Mr. Roberts: The Minister gave us the example of the young man who had no farm previously. There is something to be said for widening the Clause so that that point can be covered, but I do not think there is very much to be said for the Minister's second example—the farmer whose fences are bad, and who allows his stock to trespass. As we know, this is a very tiresome habit of some farmers, and it reduces the efficiency of farmers in the neighbourhood. But this is a wrong way to deal with that problem. If a farmer is being a nuisance to his neighbour, because his fences are bad, that is a very good reason for dealing with the law of trespass.

Mr. York: It cannot be done.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Roberts: I believe that neighbours in country districts are quite prepared to go to law with each other. Where a man is making a habit of allowing his stock to trespass on another man's land he ought to be stopped. The law ought to have been altered long ago. To give that as an adequate reason why the Minister can give consent to the termination of the tenancy of an otherwise good tenant is opening the door to all kinds of abuses. The Minister will still have to be advised by his local committees as to whether, on the whole, the general efficiency not, apparently, of the farm, but of the neighbourhood, will be increased by a change of tenancy. He will not ask, in each case, whether a man's stock has been straying. The committee which will consider the matter may be influenced—and I suppose this Bill will have to last for another 25 years or so—

by the words, "efficient farming." That opens the door to all kinds of extraneous considerations. Let me be quite frank, there are popular and unpopular farmers—there are men who may he unpopular for perfectly good reasons, but that is not a sufficient reason for their being dispossessed of their farms. Unpopular farmers' cattle sometimes stray, and popular farmers' cattle sometimes stray.
I think that the words "efficient farming" are so wide as to be open to all sorts of undesirable possibilities and I regret that the Minister has introduced them. The Minister in considering these cases ought to have regard to the efficient farming of the land in question. As to his first example concerning the young man, he may not be able to appoint that young man on a knowledge of his work on the farm in question, but he may have been the manager of another farm, and the Minister can judge from that farm and say that the young man is likely to make a better farmer than the present man, who is a very indifferent farmer. I do not see why the Minister could not give the farm to an able young man perfectly well—perhaps not under the regulations as they are at present in the Ministry—but under the actual wording of the old Clause. I think that the present proposals open the door to a serious possibility of abuse, perhaps not this year or next year, but eventually.

Mr. Alpass: I beg to move, as am Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 5, after "farming," to insert:
of the land comprised in the holding for which notice has been served.
The effect of this Amendment would be to restore the words of the Bill as originally drafted. I feel very strongly indeed on the question of security of tenure, because not only have I seen great injustices done, but I have suffered personally from them. In the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill, it was stated that it was based upon the twin pillars of stability and security. I submit that the alteration of the wording of this Clause which the Minister has proposed will very seriously weaken the pillar of security. I think that it will undermine its foundations very seriously.
On the Second Reading of the Bill, the Minister said that Clause 30, which gives greater security of tenure to the farmer, is a most important Clause. In


future, when a tenant receives notice to quit, he will have the right of appeal to the Minister except, of course, if he has failed to fulfil the terms of his tenancy agreement, and if the Minister considers a change of tenant would be likely to result in the more efficient use of the land, then the Minister has power to give consent. I suggest that the wording he is now asking the House to accept opens the door in a very dangerous fashion. We had the pleasure of the Minister's presence at a very large meeting in the capital of my county, when he spoke to a gathering of farmers. He was very enthusiastically received, and I suggest that every one of the farmers present went away from that meeting under the impression that the only reason a farmer could be dispossessed of his farm was on account of his inefficient farming.

Mr. Vane: Not a good farmer.

Mr. Alpass: The only reason that a farmer could be dispossessed. I submit that that was the impression he gave. With my colleagues, I have been about the country explaining this Bill, and we have all emphasised that this is a most important part of the Bill, and that so long as a man was doing his duty to the farm, and farming efficiently, he had no need to fear that he would be disturbed. Now some new element is brought in. It is suggested that if a farmer does not keep his fences in good order—and, by the way, that is one of the reasons a landlord can apply to the executive committee for power of dispossession—or for some other reason which may not be directly connected with the actual farming of his own farm, the Minister should have power to sanction the notice to quit. On the question of the young farmer and the old farmer, I agree with the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) that the power to say to the old farmer, "You are getting past your prime; this young farmer would farm the land more efficiently, and, therefore, the Minister should be allowed to sanction the notice to quit to the old farmer," is contained in the original draft.

Mr. Vane: I never said that.

Mr. Alpass: I know of several occasions where a man does not get on very well with his neighbours because his politics or his religion do not suit them. I am not putting forward an imaginary case. I have known occasions when a man

differed from the rest of the farmers in his district on politics or religion, and they said to the landlord that it would be in the interests of farming in that district if he were to ask the farmer to leave. I do not say that these things are as frequent now as they used to be, but the door has been opened, and I can imagine cases of that sort occurring in the future. If I happened to be the tenant on a big estate—[Interruption]—my opinions are known—I can imagine that it might easily be suggested that in the interests of the efficient farming of the district Mr. Alpass should be asked to leave. I might be as good or a better farmer than anyone else in the district. [Interruption.] Hon. Members can go into my county and find out my character. I suggest that the only reason why a man should be dispossessed of his farm, unless the land is wanted for national or public purposes, should be inefficient farming.
We in the Labour Party have always put this in our agricultural policy and programme. I know that all sorts of things are done at conferences—sometimes Ministers are outvoted—but I have yet to learn that at any conference of the Labour Party this important proposal with regard to absolute security of tenure to the good farmer has been in any sense varied. I am rather afraid that somebody has been whispering in the ear of the Minister on this question and has over-persuaded him. Certainly, it would not be any member of the Labour Party, because he is not in the habit of making concessions to his hon. Friends behind him. I want to suggest quite seriously that no reason has been given for the alteration of the words as they were originally drafted. We do not want to bring in any extraneous matters that have nothing to do with the man's individual farming, and if this is carried with the alteration suggested by the Minister, it will give many of the farmers in the country a feeling of insecurity, whereas under the original words they knew that, as long as they farmed properly, they could plan ahead and nothing would happen to disturb them in their tenancy or prevent them from reaping the fruits of the labour, money and energy which they had put into their farming operations. I shall be very sorry if the House agrees to this alteration, because I feel it is seriously weakening the important policy upon which the Bill is based.

Mr. Paget: Mr. Paget (Northampton) rose—

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. and learned Member rise to second the Amendment?

Mr. Paget: No, Sir.

Major Wise: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Mr. Paget: I think the hon. Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass), in moving this Amendment, forgot that the power given to the Minister is a discretionary power. If a landlord came to the Minister and said, "I want to get rid of a farmer because he does not get on with his neighbours, owing to his having a different religion," I think it would be rather unlikely that the Minister would agree.

Mr. Alpass: A Labour Minister.

Mr. Paget: Indeed, any Minister. It is a discretionary power, and it seems to me to be a delusion to say that it departs from the principle that a good farmer ought not to be disturbed in his land. It merely recognises that a man may be a bad farmer, not for what he does to the land which he occupies, but for what he does to his neighbours' land. He can be a very bad farmer for that reason, far more so today than used to be the case, now that it is recognised how important it is to try to get cleaner herds in this country. Farmers who are going in for attested cattle and who are trying to get their herds clean, and to produce the best quality of milk, may find their very desirable efforts frustrated by a neighbour who will neither keep a clean herd nor keep his cattle in, and there must be power to deal with that sort of case.

Mr. Alpass: That was really provided for in the Bill as it was, because it said that one of the conditions of good farming was proper management of stock

Mr. Paget: If this Amendment were inserted and power confined to
the land comprised in the holding for which notice has been served.
a man could not be turned out of his farm because he continually allowed his cattle to stray. That was precisely the example given by the Minister. A man may do tremendous harm to a whole neighbourhood if he lets a tubercular herd stray into, and mix with, other cattle which are attested and kept clean. That is the

great mischief which can be done in those circumstances, and if we are trying to build up an attested and clean status on which the herds can be kept, it is essential that this power should be available.

Question, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Further Amendment made: In page 30, line 33, leave out "(3) and (4)," and insert "to (3)."—[Mr. T. Williams.]

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Marquand: I beg to move, in page 31, line 36, at the end, to insert:
except in the case of a tenancy subsisting under a contract entered into before the twenty-fifth day of March, nineteen hundred and forty-seven.
Subsection (10) of Clause 30 deletes paragraphs (a) and (b) of Subsection (2) of Section 25 of the 1923 Act, which provided that 12 months notice to quit need not be given in the case of land owned by Government Departments, local authorities and statutory undertakers where that land is wanted for a purpose, not being an agricultural purpose for which it had been purchased by the Government Department, local authority, or statutory undertaker concerned. This provision will not create any hardships for the future since paragraph (c) of Section 25 of the 1923 Act will still remain. This provides that any landlord can make an agreement with his tenant to resume possession for some particular non-agricultural purpose at less than 12 months notice if he so desires. It will, therefore, be possible for Government Departments, local authorities and statutory undertakers to take advantage of paragraph (c) and make agreements to resume possession earlier than 12 months. It was pointed out, however, that this does not cover existing agreements, which rely on paragraphs (a) and (b) which are to be deleted, and Government Departments and so on might be placed in a difficult position if they were unable to resume possession under 12 months. The Amendment is accordingly proposed simply to safeguard the existing agreements made, which relied on the paragraphs which are now to be deleted.

Mr. Vane: Is not this a very backward Amendment? Surely public authorities should set an example to private owners. We have been talking of security of tenure,


and now we have a Minister on the Front Bench opposite, without any reason, suggesting that a quite considerable part of the agricultural land of this country should be held on terms by which the owner, local authority or Government Department, can terminate the occupier's tenancy under conditions which the have just been told are intolerable.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 31, line 37, leave out from first "to," to the end of the subsection, and insert:
any such notice as is specified in Subsection (8) of the last foregoing Section."—[Mr. T. Williams.]

CLAUSE 33.—(Transitional provisions as to compensation.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 33, line 34, to leave out "if," and to insert:
(i) where the tenancy terminates by reason of a notice to quit, and.
This Amendment and the next two Amendments deal with the same topic. Hon. Members will know that Clause 33 of the Bill contains transitional provisions relating to compensation. A sitting tenant, when Part II of the Bill comes into force can, with regard to improvements set out in Part II of the Fourth Schedule, by virtue of paragraph (b) of Subsection (2) elect either to have compensation in respect of tenant right under the Bill or, apart from the provisions of the Bill, under custom or agreement. He is given that right to elect if he is a sitting tenant within the meaning of Subsection (2). All that these Amendments do is this. When his tenancy is determined it may either be determined by virtue of the operation of Clause 30, that is to say by a notice to quit which is allowed to stand under the provisions of Clause 30 of the Bill, or it may be determined under Clause 17, that is to say the Clause which deals with dispossession. If he wants to make an election under Clause 33 he has to give notice to the landlord, but the landlord himself is given the right to call upon the tenant, to make up his mind which he wants. If the landlord gives the tenant notice to make up his mind whether he is going to have compensation under the Bill or apart from the Bill the tenant must do so. But where the tenancy is going to end under Section 30 it may be that it depends upon a decision

to be given by the Minister or the Tribunal, and the tenant will obviously not know what the decision is going to be. The first object of the Amendments therefore is to give the tenant a certain elbow room after the decision of the Tribunal is made known before he is called upon to make his election.
The second part of the proposed new proviso is concerned with the case where the tenancy is determined under Clause 17. There the tenant has three months in which to vacate the holding, but obviously the landlord may wish him to make up his mind at an early stage whether he is going to opt for Bill compensation or non-Bill compensation. The second part of the proposed new proviso therefore provides that the tenant, having been called upon to do so, must make his election in the time set out in the Amendment, provided the landlord gives notice in writing. All that these Amendments do is to fill out a space which has been left in the drafting of the Bill as it stands at the moment. They deal with the position where a decision on a tenancy is before the Minister or the tribunal, and they also require that where a tenant has his interest determined under Clause 17 he has got to be speedy in making up his mind when called upon to do so. In asking the House to accept these Amendments, I would add that they do not deal with a principle, but they really fill in a gap that was left by the Bill when it was originally drafted.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 33, line 36, leave out from beginning, to "to."

In line 39, leave out "the said period," and insert:
one month from the giving of the notice under this paragraph or, if the operation of the notice to quit depends on any proceedings under Section thirty of this Act, after the expiration of one month from the termination of those proceedings;
(ii) where the tenancy terminates by reason of an order under Subsection (I) of Section seventeen of this Act, and at any time after the making of the order and before the termination of the tenancy the landlord gives such a notice in writing as aforesaid to the tenant, the tenant shall not be entitled to give a notice under paragraph (b) of this Subsection after the expiration of one month from the giving of the notice under this paragraph."—[Mr. T. Williams.]

CLAUSE 34 —(Variation of rent of holdings.)

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, in page 34, line 44, to leave out from "otherwise," to "or" in line 46.

Captain Crookshank: The Minister has moved the Amendment, but he has not said whether it is drafting or consequential, and I should like to know.

Mr. Marquand: This Amendment is bound up with the Amendment which follows it on the Order Paper, and which reads—in page 35, line 3, at the end, to insert:
Provided that there shall be disregarded for the purposes of this Subsection—

(i) any increase of rent under Subsection (4) of this Section or any such increase as is referred to in proviso (i) to that Subsection,
(ii) any reduction of rent under Subsection (6) of Section seventeen of this Act or under Section twenty-seven of the Act of 1923,
(iii) any other variation of rent which under the following provisions of this Act is directed to be disregarded for the purposes of this Subsection."

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Might it not be of assistance to the House if we were given some explanation as to what the next Amendment is before we pass this one?

Mr. Speaker: If these two Amendments hang together, we will discuss both of them on the first one, which is quite a usual form of procedure.

Mr. Marquand: I think the House will agree that these two Amendments represent an improvement in the drafting of the Bill which will be to the advantage of both landlord and tenant. The purpose of the Amendments is to deal with the case where a tenant farmer is deprived of part of his holding and as a result there is a proportionate reduction in the rent. That might result from the receipt of a notice to quit coming from the landlord within the provisions of Section 27 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, or by the Minister dispossessing the tenant under Clause 17 of this Bill, which hon. Members know is a Clause where a tenant can be dispossessed on account of bad husbandry. Obviously, there can be a reduction of rent in such circumstances only if the tenant is partially dispossessed. In either case, whether under the 1923 Act or under this Bill, there will be a

proportionate reduction in the rent of the holding. This, however, will not be the fixing of a new rent for the bit of the holding which is left to the occupier but an apportionment of the existing rent as between the two parts of the holding, the part with which the occupier is left and the part which is taken from him. Since that is so, it clearly should not count under Clause 34, which prevents any arbitration from taking place for a further period of three years. Paragraph (ii) of the second Amendment provides that any reduction of rent under the provisions referred to shall be disregarded for the purposes of Clause 34. Paragraph (i) of the second Amendment merely repeats what is already in the Bill.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Would the Paymaster-General repeat the remarks he made in regard to paragraph (ii), because it does not conform to what is on the Order Paper?

Mr. Marquand: I am advised that any reduction under Clause 17 of the Bill or under Section 27 of the 1923 Act shall be disregarded for the purposes of Clause 34. If I have made a mistake—

Major Mott-Radclyffe: It says Subsection (6) of Clause 17.

Mr. Marquand: I do not wish to deceive the House. I have not the same detailed experience of this Bill as have hon. Members who sat through the Committee stage. Clause 17 is the dispossession Clause, and I am advised that any reduction under that Clause, or under Section 27 of the 1923 Act, shall be disregarded for the purpose of Clause 34.

Major Mott-Radclyffe: I think that probably it is a misprint, but it says here:
Any reduction of rent under Subsection (6) of Section seventeen. …

Mr. T. Williams: I think the hon. and gallant Member has forgotten about the new Subsection (6) which was inserted during the afternoon.

Major Mott-Radclyffe: I hope that makes it clear.

Captain Crookshank: It has really nothing to do with it. I am sorry to raise this, but we must clear up the point. What we inserted this afternoon was other procedure to take the place of that which concerns a constable's right to act without


warrant. There is no reduction of rent whether the Minister gets a warrant or not to get rid of something. Something has gone wrong here.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Marquand: Evidently something may have gone wrong. I regret that it should be so, and I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment and to undertake that the matter shall be considered in another place.

Mr. T. Williams: I should like to apologise to the House for the apparent mistake which has been made, but I can assure hon. Gentlemen that my explanation is correct. If the Amendment is withdrawn, the matter can then be dealt with in another place; but I assure the House that the new Subsection (6) which is referred to is the one that is confusing the issue.

Mr. Marquand: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, in page 35, line 30, to leave out from the beginning, to "no," in line 31.
The effect of this Amendment is to leave out the words
in the case of an improvement completed before the commencement of this Part of this Act.
Subsection (4) provides that where a landlord has carried out an improvement on the holding which falls within paragraphs (a), (b) or (c), as set out in the Subsection, he shall be able to ask from his tenant an increase in rent of an amount equal to the increase in the rental value of the holding attributable to that particular improvement. Proviso (i) lays down, however, that if a landlord and a tenant have agreed on an increase in rent in respect of the improvement, the landlord cannot make another claim under this Subsection. In other words, if the landlord and the tenant have entered into an agreement they should stick to it.
Proviso (i) also lays down that if the landlord has increased the rent for the improvement through the provisions of Section 3 of the 1923 Act, Section 9 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1943, or Section 9 of the Hill Farming Act, 1946, he cannot make another claim under the present Bill. At present, however, proviso (i) is limited

to an improvement completed before the commencement of Part III of the Bill. If, however, the landlord and the tenant have agreed to an increased rent for an improvement, there seems to be no logical reason why they should not stick to it, even though the improvement is not completed until after Part III of this Bill comes into operation. It is not felt that this limitation is necessary or desirable as regards other cases dealt with in proviso (i). Where an increased rent or interest has become payable under the Acts of 1923, 1943 or 1946, this would occur only where an improvement was completed before Part III came into operation; in other cases, where an improvement is not completed before Part III operates, the landlord could not claim under those Acts, but would make his claim under Subsection (4) of this Clause. For these reasons, the Amendment seeks to delete the words referred to, and I hope that this puts the matter in its proper perspective.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 36.—(Liability for repair, maintenance and insurance of fixed equipment.)

Mr. York: I beg to move, in page 37, line ii, to leave out "whether created before or," and to insert, "created."
The purpose of this Amendment is to restrict the provisions of Clause 36 to agreements made after the coming into operation of the Bill, and I think a good deal of criticism was levelled in this particular connection during an earlier stage of the Bill. It seems to us that it is wrong to make a provision which will lead inevitably to the upsetting of well established customs and agreements signed some years ago. That upsetting may be caused through an arbitration arising out of regulations which the Minister will make under Clause 36 (I), and it appears to us that it is highly undesirable that the old agreements, which have been working well in the past and in connection with which there are no complaints, should be upset by new regulations which have no bearing on the particular problems in the light of which those covenants were made.
The owner and the tenant managed to abide by their covenant sufficiently well in the past and now that things are, perhaps, looking more stable, there does not seem to be any reason why an owner


should wriggle out of conditions which may be more onerous than those which the regulations will lay down. For that matter, the same thing applies to the tenant. It is right and proper that the rent of a holding should go to arbitration from time to time. That is reasonable and necessary, but the terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement entered into freely between the landlord and the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy should not be subjected to what amounts to a three yearly review if they have been entered into before this Bill comes into force. It is for those reasons that we put forward this Amendment.

Mr. Vane: I beg to second the Amendment.
This. Clause is apparently part of the Minister's attack on the ancient customs in this country which play such a big part in agricultural valuations. Presumably he hopes in future to try to arrange Clauses for liability of repair which follow more or less closely certain models which he is going to make. It is a pity that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) is not here because, as the author of one of the best-known books on agricultural customs, he could, I hope, bear me out when I say that there is reason behind these many differences. I think there will be a great many unnecessary complications if tenancy 4greements which were signed some years ago are now to be reviewed, and although some hon. Members who are less well acquainted with agricultural agreements may think there is great injustice if more liability for repair falls on one party than on the other, I do not think that that is really so. The cost of the additional liability is almost always reflected in the rent, and whereas a case can be made for simplifying covenants and agreements entered into after the Bill comes into force, there can be no case for bringing under review at the same time the many varieties of covenant entered into in the past.

The Solicitor-General: We think that this Amendment should not be accepted. Hon. Members will ask what justification there is in making this in a sense retrospective. I will endeavour to show why we think that it should be in this case. Clause 36 assumes that there will be regulations which will adjust upon a reasonable basis the liability as between land-

lord and tenant with regard to the maintenance and so on of fixed repairs. Assuming that those regulations do adjust them on a fair basis, I should have thought that it would be in the general interest that the adjustment should be made not only in relation to agreements entered into after the Bill comes into force, but it should be competent—I do not say it should necessarily ensue—to do the same in regard to agreements already in force.
I urge on hon. Members that it is not an automatic process. When the regulations have been made either party may go to the other and suggest that the regulations should be embodied in the existing agreement. That is all that happens. If the other party refuses, the matter may be taken to arbitration under the 1923 Act. The hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York) pointed out that in the event of it coming before an arbitrator, an adjustment can be made in the rent proportionate to the shifting of the incidence of liability with regard to maintenance. I ask hon. Gentlemen to assume, in considering the Amendment, that the adjustment which is proposed by the regulations is reasonable and fair. Assuming that is so, surely, it is in everybody's interest that it should be possible in the case of an existing agreement just as in the case of an agreement entered into after the Bill comes into force to incorporate ex hypothesi a fair and just apportionment of liability as between the landlord and tenant.
I should have thought that either side bound under the terms of an existing agreement might wish to take advantage of a Clause of this sort. It might be perfectly fair that the liabilities should be altered and patent to both of them that that should be the case. One might have a landlord labouring under what was to him a grossly unfair agreement. He might say, "I would like this to go to an arbitrator. If some of this liability is taken from me I am perfectly prepared to submit to a reduction in the rent." If the Amendment is accepted, that cannot he done and that person must continue to labour under a purely fortuitous or unwise agreement made by a predecessor or by him in a moment of lack of proper consideration.
It means that people may be caught by unfortunate agreements they have entered into before the Act comes into


force and are precluded from relief of which they may very well wish to avail themselves. I emphasise and underline that this is a chance of having the matter heard before an arbitrator. It does not force anything on anybody. The only thing that can be forced on a person is that if he is in a position to take advantage of what may be an unfair agreement, he can be forced to go before an arbitrator. The agreement can be fairly apportioned and there is a fair apportionment of the rent. I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed because it would be disadvantageous to a great many persons who are saddled by agreements which impose an unfair burden on them, whether they are landlords or tenants. It is simply to give persons who are bound by existing agreements the chance of getting the thing reviewed by an arbitrator with a consequent alteration of rent.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Joynston-Hicks: I did not quite follow the Solicitor-General. The object of this Amendment is to preserve the sanctity of existing contracts between landlord and tenant before this Bill comes into force. The burden of his argument was that it was unfair not to give this opportunity to two consenting parties who were in agreement as to the desirability of varying the contract.

The Solicitor-General: I did not say two parties who are in agreement I said, to give an opportunity to one person who is burdened with an unfair agreement to insist upon the matter going to an arbitrator in order that the arbitrator can fairly apportion the agreement and the rent.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I think that if the Solicitor-General refers to the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow he will find I am correct in saying that the major burden of his argument was where it appeared to both parties to be desirable to vary the terms of the agreement. I will pass from that if he did not intend to say that but, obviously, if that was so, they could vary the agreement without recourse to arbitration or any other statutory requirement. Where it is desired on the part of one party who feels himself aggrieved by the terms of his contract to have the right to proceed to arbitration for variation of that contract, it is a principle which goes to undermine the whole basis of contractual

liability in all matters to do with the country. Suppose in any business relationship where a contract has been entered into one party feel aggrieved It may be that the trend of prices or the transport facilities of the country have not come up to expectations and enabled him to carry out his side of the bargain as well as he had anticipated. If this principle is admitted in this direction, why should not any party who has entered into a contract and subsequently feels himself aggrieved by it, have the right to go to an arbitrator and say, "I misjudged the expectations when I entered into this contract. Relieve me of the burden of the liability." I am surprised that the Solicitor-General who has such a large experience of dealing with contracts of all sorts, should so seek to undermine one of the basic principles of our constitution with regard to the sanctity of contracts by such an argument.

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: I want to say a word in support of the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks). It is a very dangerous principle if we accept it, that contracts which have been arrived at freely and voluntarily by two sides can be upset at the whim of one party. I think the Solicitor-General was possibly unwise or might possibly have misled the House in using the word "unfair." I do not think anyone would regard as unfair a contract arrived at quite voluntarily and freely by two sides. What has happened is that the conditions in agriculture have varied very much compared with what they were when the contract was made. The House should realise that if one is going to alter the arrangements of contracts for tenancy agreements, it will adversely affect the farmer rather than the landlord. Most of the contracts for tenancy agreements I can think of were made before the war when agriculture was in an extremely depressed condition and when it was almost impossible to let a farm. One almost had to pay someone to farm it. Conditions have changed. It seems to me that if a man came along and took a farm in those circumstances it is rather hard if the terms of his agreement can now be altered. I am with the right hon. Gentleman in his wish to see a greater uniformity of tenancy agreements as a whole throughout the country but I think we


are accepting a dangerous principle if we say that contracts which have been arrived at can now be altered.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. York: I beg to move, in page 37, line 17, at the end to insert:
within the period of two months from the making of such request.
This is a small point but one which I think will commend itself to the Government. It has been accepted by the House that the proceedings of arbitration should not be held up indefinitely because of the dilatory behaviour of one party or other to the arbitration. We suggest, therefore, that a time limit of two months should be placed upon the matter so that the arbitration shall be brought into effect within that time. I hope the Government will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Vane: I beg to second the Amendment.
Whereas I think it is a pity that so many matters which could be settled between a landlord and tenant are being brought, under this Bill, either before the agricultural committee or arbitrator or other third party, I still think that if so many matters are to be adjudged in those various ways, it should be done with reasonable speed.

Mr. Marquand: I was not surprised, in the discussion on the previous Amendment to this Clause, that hon. Members opposite expressed a great deal of enthusiasm for freedom of contract between individuals, but I am a little surprised that they should now propose, apparently, to set a time limit on reaching agreement in such private contracts. It seems to me that this suggests a limitation on the voluntary character of the contract which is being entered into. Is it not somewhat to limit the voluntary nature of a contract to impose upon the two parties a very short time limit in which they can arrive at agreement? I would suggest too that a provision of this kind is unnecessary and undesirable. If one of the parties makes a request to the other to modify the existing terms, and does not allow the other party reasonable time in which to reply before referring the matter to arbitration, there is little doubt that an arbitrator would hold that he had acted unreason-

ably and would require him to pay all the cost of the arbitration. I should have thought that would be a sufficiently effective deterrent to either of the parties giving insufficient time. Again it must be remembered that here are two parties negotiating together, and the very fact that they enter into this negotiation suggests some possibility of agreement between them. It might happen that those parties were prepared to make the necessary modifications to the existing terms but that their negotiations might take a little longer than two months. On the whole, therefore, I think it would be more in character with freedom of contract between two individuals not to impose a time limit of this character.

Mr. York: The point at issue is not that the negotiations leading up to the arbitration should only take two months, but that once arbitration has been decided on, the arbitration should take place within two months.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): It will be for the convenience of the House if we take the next two Amendments together.

Mr. York: I beg to move, in page 37, line 21, to leave out from "that," to "such," in line 22, and to insert "no."
If the proviso were amended by the next Amendment as well, it would then read:
Provided that no such reference shall be made before the expiration of three years from either of the following dates, that is to say—

(a) the commencement of the tenancy, or
(b) the date as from which there took effect an award of an arbitration on a previous reference under this Subsection relating to the same tenancy."
It would be undesirable to disturb a repairing covenant of the tenancy agreement immediately after the commencement of the tenancy. Although I do not think this is a very large alteration to the meaning of the Clause, it makes it quite certain that an arbitration will not take place immediately after the commencement of the tenancy. That is undesirable because it would vary the rent immediately. These Amendments taken together bring the Clause into line with Clause 34.

Mr. Vane: I beg to second the Amendment.
While I think the Minister is bound to agree that little can be said for entering into any agreement about which there may be arbitration on one of the major conditions the following day, I think he will agree also that arbitration dealing with the modification of a repairing covenant, such as is envisaged here, is much more practical if it follows the same line as arbitration affecting rent. I believe it is not possible to go to arbitration on rent until the tenancy has been running three years, so I am sure he will think it is desirable to make this follow a parallel course.

Mr. T. Williams: I am sorry that I am unable to accept the Amendment and I hope to be able to give solid reasons in a minute and a half. The purpose of these two Amendments is to provide that there shall be no arbitration on existing terms relating to maintenance, repair and insurance, until three years from the start of the tenancy. The reason for my refusal to accept the Amendment is because it would help one or other in certain circumstances to drive an unreasonable bargain, and that we want to prevent. Since both parties will know that, should they drive a hard or an unreasonable bargain when they are negotiating a tenancy agreement, the other can revert to arbitration, then I think a more balanced view will be taken of the agreement. If, therefore, the terms of the agreement are reasonable, neither of the parties will want to go to arbitration. If there were no power to go to arbitration for three years and very few farms were available with security of tenure, as is foreshadowed by hon. Members in many of their speeches, it might be an encouragement here and there to drive a hard bargain.
The reason why arbitration on maintenance and repair is treated differently from rent in Clause 34 is that in this case with a statutory Clause there will be a yardstick, a standard by which to measure these things. This will serve as a guide to whether or not those terms and conditions are reasonable. If they are, there will be no need for arbitration, but it the terms imposed by one party upon the other are unreasonable there ought to be a possibility of arbitration. In resisting the Amendment we wish to preserve better relationships and agreements.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I do not understand what the Minister is getting at here at all. He has referred mysteriously to the possibility of somebody driving a hard bargain. It is not a question in this case of two people, one in a superior position and one in an inferior, entering into an agreement, or of a minor requiring protection. It is a situation between a person who is a tenant on the one hand, prepared to undertake extensive operations upon the land, negotiating the terms of his tenancy with the owner of the land on the other. If the tenant is not capable of doing it he is not capable of running the farm. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind when he talks about hard bargains. He referred to these provisions as a yardstick whereby the reasonableness of repair clauses could be measured. I see his point, but it is most dangerous. I realise that with a set of model clauses we must have a model repair clause, which can be called a yardstick, but if one is to try to relate every existing tenancy agreement and repair clause to the yardstick of a model clause, one has to deny the fact of the differentiation of the circumstances which exist in each case. It will be impossible for farming operations and the relationship of landlord and tenant to be carried on in a proper, businesslike way if people are to be denied the right of free negotiation and are to be standardised to the yardstick of a model clause. The right hon. Gentleman is expressing a most singular lack of confidence in the ability of persons in this industry when he argues in favour of the rejection of the Amendment on the ground that they should be denied the free right of negotiation which they have had for a very long time and which has not operated to the detriment as yet of the agricultural industry.

Mr. York: We have warned the Minister in connection with several Amendments that he was straining the proper, traditional usage of the covenants of tenancy agreements. I cannot help feeling that although we all acknowledge the possibility of unscrupulous men trying to get undue advantage over tenants, it is no deterrent to them to know that within three years the tenant can take the matter to arbitration. Secondly, if there is a lack of repair or maintenance on the farm caused by the tenant not doing what


the tenant thinks unreasonable, the Committee will very soon know that there is something wrong. By and large, I believe it to be a matter of too small importance that advantage might be taken of agreements being rather too onerous, to make it worth while to break down the present general acceptance of the sanctity of contract. All we can say is that if the Minister will not accept our warnings we must let him go his way and that we believe that he will learn in time that we have been on the right lines.

Mr. T. Williams: I would just like to say that the Clause is designed to bring the landowner and the tenant nearer together. I should hate, consciously, willingly or with malice aforethought, to do anything that I thought would estrange them. The Subsection is there to allow arbitration to be resorted to if necessary. The unscrupulous person to whom the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York) has just referred is not universal. He is a type of person in respect of whom we have constantly to legislate, but I hope the hon. Member will not think I am unreasonable in trying to keep the relationship between landlord and tenant upon an even keel.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. York: I beg to move, in page 37, line 29, after the first "the," to insert:
character and situation and other relevant.
This Amendment is consequential upon one which was accepted by the Minister to Clause 14. That Amendment was for the purpose of including "all other relevant circumstances," and it was accepted by the Minister. I hope that he will now be able to accept this Amendment.

Mr. Vane: I beg to second the Amendment.
I hope that the Minister will see that acceptance of the words here proposed will have the effect of bringing landlord and tenant closer together.

The Solicitor-General: I am grateful to hon. Members opposite for having taken up this point. I do not propose to advise the House to accept the Amendment. If the Amendment were accepted it would, we feel, rather narrow the circumstances which can be taken into consideration beyond the degree to which we desire them to be narrowed, and I believe

beyond the degree to which hon. Gentlemen opposite would also desire them to be narrowed. I am grateful to them because we were a little doubtful whether the words which we have used are quite satisfactory. They have forcibly directed our attention to the point which might otherwise have escaped our attention, vigilant though it is. What we desire to embrace by the words in the Clause as it stands, are all the circumstances including the personal circumstances. It might be very relevant, for example, to take into consideration the fact that the owner of agricultural land lives a considerable way from the land, or the arbitrator may have to take into account the personal circumstances of the tenant.

Mr. Vane: On behalf of the hon. Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass) may I ask that the political beliefs of either party should not be taken into account?

The Solicitor-General: Nor is the colour of his hair, nor the look of his face, taken into account. The political beliefs are so personal as to be regarded in the same province as possession of the face, or hair. We do not take that into account, but other personal circumstances which would affect the question of fairness or unfairness, and convenience or inconvenience. If the Amendment were adopted, it might well preclude such circumstances being taken into account. We want to enable the arbitrator to take a rather wider view, and in his consideration to embrace such circumstances as I have mentioned. But, having had our attention called to the point, we rather wonder whether our own wording is quite wide enough, though, at the same time as we express gratitude and give an undertaking to look at these words again, I must advise the House not to accept the Amendment.

Captain Crookshank: It is not at all surprising that the Government are once more obliged to us for our help during the passage of this Bill. We are getting quite used to it, and we accept from the hon. and learned Gentleman that he will look at this matter again. Our reason for putting the Amendment forward was that we succeeded in getting these words put into Clauses 10 and 11 when there was any question of considering management and husbandry. We regarded them as


necessary here. I am not at all sure that the enormous widening which the hon. and learned Gentleman wants is right and I should have to think about that also. I quite see that in many cases personal circumstances are relevant, but in this case one of the circumstances stated was that of the landlord living a long way away. At first sight I cannot see that that is very relevant as a liability for a repair covenant. I agree that the words are not quite right and accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's promise to look at them again.

Amendment negatived.

8.15 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 37, line 34, to leave out Subsections (4) and (5).
This Amendment is consequential on the new Clause which was on the Order Paper under the title "Supplementary Provisions to s. 36 and s. 37." When moving that Clause, I pointed out that the last two Subsections were in identical terms subject to one alteration to the last two Subsections of Clause 36which I now seek to leave out. In other words, I adumbrated that this Amendment would be necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 37.—(Provisions for securing written tenancy agreements.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 38, line 20, at the end, to insert:
(3) Where regulations under the last foregoing Section have varied the terms of a tenancy of a holding as to maintenance, repair or insurance of fixed equipment (whether those terms were established by agreement or by the operation of regulations under the last foregoing Section), then if a reference is made under this Section within the prescribed period after the coming into operation of the first mentioned regulations the arbitrator shall for the purposes of the last foregoing Subsection disregard the variation.
To explain the object of this Amendment I would invite hon. Members to contrast Clause 36 with Clause 37. Clause 36 provides for the making of regulations dealing with the circumstances of liability as to fixed equipment. Clause 37 deals with a slightly different situation. It says that where there is not in force a written agreement, or where there is in force a written agreement which does not cover all the matters set out in the Sixth Schedule,

certain vital matters which should appear in every agreement, a very similar procedure by way of arbitration can be resorted to in order to get terms specified and an agreement defined or in order to get an extension of an existing written agreement so as to bring within its purview the matters dealt with in the Sixth Schedule, which hitherto have not been included in the agreement. The object of Clause 37 is to enable the parties, if they want, to escape the effect of Clause 36. If they want to insist on the terms of the agreement they are given the machinery under Clause 37 of going to arbitration and having the actual agreement they have made, with its actual terms relating to fixed equipment, embodied in an agreement the terms of which will be fixed by the arbitrator, those terms to include the liability in regard to fixed equipment.
If the Amendment were not made, the arbitrator might, when called upon to act under Clause, 37 say that the regulations have been made under Clause 36 and that the effect is that statutory terms set out in the regulations must be read into the agreement. Therefore, in specifying the terms of the agreement he would feel bound to specify as part of the agreement those statutory terms. If he felt so bound, the object of Clause 37 would be defeated, that object being to enable the parties to stick to the agreement they have despite any regulations made under Clause 36. The Amendment says that although there may have been regulations made under Clause 36, if an arbitrator is called upon to act under Clause 37, he can for the purposes of Clause 37 disregard the regulations under Clause 36. He can treat the matter de novo, and define the agreement between the parties as if it had not been in any way varied by the terms laid down by regulations under Clause 36. The effect of the last three or four lines of the Amendment is that within the prescribed time the firstmentioped regulations shall be disregarded for the purpose of arbitration. The Amendment is necessary to give full effect to the object of Clause 37.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: The Amendment says:
if a reference is made under this section within the prescribed period after the coming into operation of the first-mentioned regulations


the arbitrator shall ignore the regulations. I do not quite follow the purport of the words "within the prescribed period." Surely, if it is right that the arbitrator should be under the necessity of disregarding the regulations on his survey of the terms of the agreement it any one period, it must be right in another period. I do not think the Solicitor-General made it quite clear to the House what is the virtue of these words "within the prescribed period"

Amendment agreed to.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 38, line 24, to leave out Subsections (4) and (5).
This is an analogous Amendment to the one I moved to Clause 36 to leave out Subsections (4) and (5) of that Clause. This, again, is consequential on the new Clause—[Supplementary provisions as to S. 36 and s. 37].

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 39.—(Power of tenant to obtain charge on holding in respect of compensation.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 39, line 30, to leave out from "or," to "under," in line 31.
Clause 39 provides for a charge in favour of a tenant in respect of payments due to him under the provisions of the Measure. If hon. Members will look at Subsection (2) they will see that it also relates to charges under Sections 15 and 41 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923. Those Sections of that Act provide that where a tenant is a tenant of a mortgagor who is indebted to him in respect of sums due under that Act, the tenant shall have a certain right against the mortgagor, which shall be by way of charge on the holding. Section 41 does very much the same thing where sums of money are due to the tenant from a landlord who is not a landlord in his own right, that is to say a landlord who is a trustee for some beneficiary of the land. In those circtimstances, Section 41 likewise gives the tenant a charge against the holding in respect of sums due under the 1923 Act. Clause 39 (2) contains what is really a defect. It says:
Any charge in respect of sums payable to a tenant created under this Section"—
"this Section" being the Clause which creates the charge—

or after the commencement of this Part the Act under Section fifteen or Section forty one of the Act of 1923 …
shall be enforcible, etc., and
shall rank in priority to any other charge, however and whenever created or arising.
Then it goes on to say that
any charges on a holding created under this Section or the said Sections fifteen and forty-one shall rank in the order of their creation.
The net effect of that is fairly clear—that charges under the Clause and charges under the 1923 Act shall, in the first place, rank in priority to all other charges, and in the second place, shall rank chronologically according to the time they were created. That is the object of Subsection (2). At the moment, however, Subsection (2) is drafted so as to exclude charges made under Sections 15 and 41 of the 1923 Act before the passing of this Bill, although it would include such charges made under the 1923 Act after the passing of this Bill, which is an anomalous position. We also feel that this is not quite consistent with the last two lines of Subsection (2) which say that these charges are to rank in order of priority chronologically. If one excludes charges which were made before the coming into effect of this Bill, one is, in a sense, going counter to that provision. One is putting first charges made after the passing into effect of this Bill, and putting after them charges made before the earning into effect of the Measure. We seek by the Amendment to bring within the purview of Subsection (2) charges made under the 1923*Act notwithstanding that they were made before the coming into effect of this Measure. It makes all charges rank in priority according to the time they were brought into being.

Amendment agreed to

CLAUSE 50.—(Letting of smallholdings.)

Sir Ian Fraser: I beg to move, in page 44, line 43, after "given," to insert:
to persons who, having served in the armed forces of the Crown, are qualified by agricultural training and experience in accordance with paragraph (a) of this Subsection and.
If hon. Members will turn to Clause 50 (3, a), which is the paragraph before the paragraph which I seek to amend, they will see that where it is intended to let a smallholding to any person it is categorically laid down that that person must have "sufficient agricultural experience."


I call particular attention to those three words "sufficient agricultural experience." My Amendment is to Subsection (3, b) which follows that paragraph, and, therefore, the whole of the power, such as it is, of Subsection (3, a) stands, and is not in any way affected by anything I ask in paragraph (b). It is important that Members should note that, because in conversations I have had with many of my hon. Friends I have gathered that there is some doubt about whether anything should be done to facilitate the coming of ex-Service men on to the land lest we should bring on to the land ex-Service men who have not the degree of experience which is asked for in Subsection (3, a).
Therefore, I call attention to the fact that the words which I propose to insert do not affect Subsection (3, a), and I submit that Subsection (3, a) governs Subsection (3, b). Subsection (3, b) emphasises that any ex-Service man who is to be given any opportunity under my proposal shall have training and experience, as defined in paragraph (a). The reason for this is very important, and I will try to dispel a little feeling of doubt about this Amendment which I know exists in many parts of the House.
8.30 p.m.
I want this Amendment to be treated in a non-party manner and without controversy. I wish to ask the Government to listen to what is, said, and not then read from a brief which they have already prepared, without taking into account the arguments which I hope to put before them, and which I feel were not adequately put before them in the Committee. The whole purpose of bringing the Bill to the House after the Committee stage is to get a wider view than may have been expressed in Committee. That does not reflect in any way upon the Committee which, in this instance, did most of its work admirably. After the first great war, a great sympathy for ex-Service men led to a demand to bring them on to the land, and there were many instances in which ex-Service men without experience or training went on to the land, spending the small money they had, their gratuity or whatever it might be. Because they had not the experience, they lost their money. That is in the minds of the Government and of hon. Members on this

side of the House who are interested in ex-Service men and their settlement.
We do not want that to happen again. We must resist it lest we bring these men, with their great hopes, into disillusionment. I ask the House to observe that my proposal is safeguarded so absolutely that that cannot occur. There has been misunderstanding about this in the earlier stages and, because of a fear that that is what I had in mind, a sufficiently wide view has not been taken of this matter. Why are any words necessary? We start from the assumptions that no man must go on the land unless he has had sufficient experience. What is sufficient experience? It depends entirely upon who is in the field. If everybody has a little experience, then a little experience is sufficient. If the need of the nation is very great and we must bring men on to the land or starve, then a little experience is sufficient. But if those applying for smallholdings are five or ten times as many as the number of smallholdings, and if they have many years of experience on the land, then "many years" may be the test of what is sufficient. Perhaps "sufficient" means average. In any event, it must be a matter of opinion.
I wish to put to the House what will happen if this Bill is not amended, because I am sure that it cannot be the wish of any hon. Member that it should happen. There may be 10 smallholdings for which there are 50 applicants next year, that is, two to three years after main demobilisation took place. Therefore, there will be a selection and four out of five applicants will have to be left out. Owing to the circumstances in which the war was fought, amongst those who apply it will be found that some 40 remained in this country throughout the war years doing most admirable work on the land. That was work without which the soldiers could not have fought their battles. I agree with Napoleon that an army marches on its stomach. It would be absurd to have an army if we did not retain the vigorous young men on the land to grow the food for them and for the people who munition them. I praise those who stayed to work on our land as well as those who stayed or were directed to work in other essential services.
But it is a fact that one would find in the queue waiting for these smallholdings 40 who were at home during the five or


six years of war, and ten who went away. If sufficient experience is the average of the 50 in terms of years of work in agriculture—those are the narrow words of paragraph (a)—then the ten men who served their country under arms will not be able to catch up with the others when one is judging on the basis of sufficient experience. It is inevitable, if we leave these words as they are, that we will have this situation. The majority of those demanding a smallholding by next year will have had five, six, seven or eight year's experience on the land, assuming they were youngsters when war broke out. On the other hand, the men who, for one reason or another, went away, will have had much less experience. Perhaps they were Territorials, men who were praised in those days and whom we wish now to join the Territorial Army again. The reason may be that there was a tradition of soldiering in the family. It may be that something stronger than the duty they felt to stay at home on the land urged them to go into the Armed Forces. I do not criticise the one who staved at home or the one who went away. I praise both. I ask the House only to observe the fact that the one who went is five years behind when counting his agricultural experience.
The man that went away might have driven a tank for four years and might have become a sergeant in the Tank Corps Hs knows what a tractor is because the construction of a tractor is very similar to the construction of a tank. In agriculture we are becoming more and more mechanised. Experience in mechanism is an important part of the experience likely to make for success on the land, but it is not agricultural experience as construed by the words in paragraph (a). Other experience which young men who served for years in the Armed Forces have had may have hardened them and enabled them to manage men and work with them. Those qualities may go far to qualify them, in the judgment of ordinary men. as likely to be successful on a smallholding, but that experience is not agricultural experience, and we are bound to judge agricultural experience under paragraph (a) We have no loophole by which to do otherwise. It is no good the Minister saying that the committee naturally will think of the men who served. The com-

mittee must do what it is told to do under the Bill.
If a man has the experience I have mentioned, and he conies back and works on a farm for a year or two, and then goes to one of the agricultural courses which the Minister is arranging, or is supposed to have arranged, he will find it most difficult to get on to the land. In parenthesis, I would recall that the Coalition Government visualised 100,000 men being brought on to the land. Nearly 4,000 have applied for courses of instruction. If more had applied the courses would not have been available. Without blaming any one for this state of affairs, I ask why the men do not go on to the land. Perhaps it is because there is no inducement. When they read this Bill they will find that they, of all people, are to be the ones who will find it most difficult to get on to the land.
I beg the House to look at this thing honestly and sincerely; without private prejudice or party view, to see whether I am not right in saying that if the words I suggest are not inserted the ex-Servicemen will be at the end of the queue. I do not say that they should be at the head of the queue to the exclusion of the ordinary farm worker. I welcome the opportunity for the largest possible number of farm workers to go up the ladder from smallholding to farming and ownership. At the same time we should ensure that somewhere at the head of the queue there should be a fair chance for men whose whole experience—technical, military and agricultural, as well as their experience of the world—should be taken into account. I think that the Clause, as it stands, does not give the ex-Serviceman a fair chance of getting placed in a smallholding under the State scheme, and because of that I have moved this Amendment. Although the word "preference" occurs, I am not asking for preference for ex-Servicemen. I am asking that they should have a level chance of bringing all their experience and of weighing it with the particular experience of the men who stayed at home doing their duties. I think it would be a matter for regret, both in the House and widely in the country, if this country were to deny to those who took up arms in its defence the chance of getting back on to the land.

Colonel Clarke: I beg to second the Amendment.
I would like to emphasise that this Amendment cannot in any way reproduce the unfortunate circumstances that occurred after the first war in regard to ex-Service men and smallholdings. I know well enough what happened in those days. I was a member of the smallholdings committee of a county council, and if I thought that this Amendment could reproduce those circumstances, I would not support it. I am quite confident that, as it is drafted, there is no danger of such a state of affairs occurring. I think that possibly there might be some criticism of the Amendment from the point of view that, in the recent war, the great majority of agriculturists were directed to remain at home. On the other hand, a great number of them did go into the various Services, some of them at great disadvantage to themselves. Therefore, I think they deserve all the credit, and certainly equal opportunity, if not preference, and I should be sorry if this Amendment in any way interfered with the ladder of agricultural advancement. All that we ask is that, where there are two men standing on the same step side by side, the ex-Service man should go up to the next rung first if he is equal in agricultural knowledge, and I feel that that is the right thing to do.

Mr. T. Williams: While I appreciate the object of the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment, and the hon and gallant Gentleman who seconded it, I am afraid I cannot accept it. I can assure both hon. and gallant Members that I also am well aware of what happened after the first world war. I remember the number of failures, and the number of ex-Service men who were enticed on to the land only to lose their all, and I know that many of them will never forget it. They were let down by an emotional Parliament. I can also assure hon. Members that this matter has been dealt with honestly and sincerely and without prejudice or bias. It is true that Clause 50 (3, a) does cut out inexperienced persons, but the Amendment does nevertheless completely ignore the conditions of the call-up in the recent war.
To accept this Amendment would be grossly unfair to the many thousands of agricultural workers who were compelled to remain at home, who were directed to remain in agriculture, who are still directed to remain in agriculture, and who are likely

to be directed to remain in agriculture for quite a considerable time. I think it would also be unfair to those who were literally born and reared in agriculture, who worked in the countryside until they reached 18 years of age, and then opted to go to the mines because coal was so necessary during the war. In these cases, they certainly are what I regard as skilled agricultural workers, who were not permitted to join the Forces, but who are clearly entitled to be given an opportunity to go up one step further on the ladder, and, if we were to accept this Amendment, it would give an absolute—

Sir I. Fraser: No

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Williams: —an absolute preference to any person who had served with the Armed Forces either in peace or war. Those are the terms of the Amendment. It gives an absolute preference to any person who has served in the Armed Forces in either peace or war. Insofar as the ex-Service man has the necessary 'agricultural qualifications, he can always be considered for a smallholding, and, if there are 50 applicants for 10 smallholdings, and the ex-Service man has the necessary qualifications, he will take his chance side by side with the other applicants, whereas this Amendment declares, if I start with Subsection (3. b)—
(b) in selecting persons to whom small holdings are to be let preference shall be given to persons who, having served in the Armed Forces of the Crown,
—and so forth. That means that if a pet-son has joined the Forces but has never been out of the country and has never served in time of war, he must have an absolute preference over a skilled agricultural worker who has been in that industry all his life.

Mr. Frank Byers: If that is true, it would change the attitude of some hon. Members, but is it, in fact, true? Does not the Clause go on to say
and to applicants who at the time of the application are employed under a contract of service"?
It cannot be an absolute priority. We are now including two categories in one priority. Surely, the Amendment does not mean to say that, in order to be the first on the list for a smallholding, men have to have Service experience? Surely, that cannot be right?

Mr. Williams: Shall I read the Subsection again? The last thing I would wish to do would be to mislead the House.

Sir I. Fraser: Will the Minister read the whole of it this time?

Mr. Williams: Certainly—
(b) In selecting persons to whom smallholdings are to be let preference shall be given to persons who, having served in the armed forces of the Crown, are qualified by agricultural training and experience in accordance with paragraph (a) of this Subsection and as between persons otherwise equally suitable, to applicants who at the time of the application are employed under a contract of service.

Sir I. Fraser: The Minister has missed out half a line.

Mr. Williams: No, I am quite sure I have not missed out half a line. I have quoted from the Bill and imported the Amendment into it.

Sir I. Fraser: Not the whole of the Amendment. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to read it all, and then he will see that it is quite fair.

Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman's Amendment on the Order Paper, which is the only one I have, says "persons who have served in the armed forces of the Crown."

Sir I. Fraser: The Minister's brief is wrong.

Mr. Williams: That does not alter the case. The Amendment gives preference—an absolute preference—to persons who have served in the Armed Forces and who are qualified in agricultural experience in accordance with paragraph (a), but it still gives an absolute preference to persons who have been in the Armed Forces. I am stating the case as I see it. We ought always to try to do our best—

Sir I. Fraser: The preference is asked for the ex-Service man and for those under contract. The right hon. Gentleman did not even then read the whole of the Amendment; he only read the first part. He ought to read it all in order to see that preference is asked for two classes of persons, and not for one. That does not put one before the other; it puts both in a fair position.

Mr. Williams: I do not think I need read it again; it does not make the

slightest difference. I have already quoted the Amendment two or three times, and I cannot make any difference in it. My main point is that the smallholding policy of the Government is designed to provide a ladder for bona fide agricultural workers. Once we start importing preferences into opportunities for smallholdings, we destroy the very basis of our smallholdings policy. For men who were born in agriculture, who have remained in agriculture and who have acquired skill in agriculture, the only possibility of promotion is to become smallholders on their own behalf. Therefore, the small holdings policy of the Government is to provide that opportunity. I do not think we should be justified in diverting from that policy one iota. I hope, therefore, that the policy as embodied in the Bill will remain, and that agricultural skill will be the major factor, and that the agricultural worker will always have first consideration. If, as I have already stated, the ex-Service man has also agricultural experience, so much the better. The chances are that he will not only have an equal opportunity, but that sentimentally, perhaps, he will find himself in a superior position to many other applicants. The opportunity is provided for agricultural workers, and I hope it will remain so.

Mr. Gooch: While I have every sympathy with much of what the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) has said with regard to the claim for ex-Service men, I think we should understand that the foundation underlying the regulations for the provision of smallholdings in future is to enable them to avoid the pitfalls of the past. We all know what happened after the first world war. There are many men coming out of the Forces today who say that they would like a hit of old England for winch they fought. There is a lot to be said for that argument, but, side by side with that, we must give very careful consideration to the points made by the Minister in support of leaving the Clause as it is. I do not exactly agree with the Minister that, by adopting the Amendment, we should be giving absolute priority to ex-Service men. I think the other line suggested is that they should take their stand with the rest, Against that, the only way to make a success of smallholdings in the future is to give those smallholdings to men who are prepared to do a lot of hard work for


a little gain, and who, owing to past experience, can really make a success of the job.
Reference has been made to ex-Service men undergoing agricultural training at the present time. The, numbers are not very large, but I think more men would go into those training centres if conditions on the land were made more attractive than they are at present. We must not only pay increased wages, but must also address ourselves to the matter of employment. The point has been raised that if we are to make a success of the agricultural training scheme for ex-Service men, we shall only get the men to come in, in so far as they realise that there is a future in it from the employment standpoint. Could the Minister look at the possibility of inviting applications from those men when they have completed their training? The Clause lays it down that the men must have agricultural experience. I make the very definite suggestion that in the ranks of ex-Service men, and particularly in the ranks of the British Legion, there is a very strong feeling that ex-Service men should be given a look in. I want not only to pay lip service to the fine work done by these men during the war, but I, with others, want to play my part in trying to make up to them something which they lost during the war years. We want the smallholdings to be a success. They can be made a success if the Minister will put into operation co-operative schemes for buying and selling and for cultivation which will enable these men to get on with the job. As I have said, I think the Minister should consider the possibility of entertaining applications from men now undergoing training.

Mr. Byers: I do not think the Minister has fully appreciated the intention of this Amendment, although I must say, with regard to its actual terms, that I am slightly unhappy about the wording of it. It can be read, although that was certainly not the intention of its mover, as giving an overall and absolute priority to the ex-Service man in one category, and then, below that category, comes the dispute between other persons under contract for service, and so on. Therefore, I think there is some substance in what the Minister has said in condemning the actual terms of the Amendment, although I also

think there is a point of substance in what was put forward by the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser).
As I see it, it is not that we are trying to do anything like what was done after the 1914–18 war. We are not trying to push men on to the land, and let them chance their luck as to whether or not they will "make a go" of it. Although it will be a diminishing liability, because there is to be a lesser period of military service from now onwards, the ex-Service man will be penalised in the future when he comes up as an applicant for a small, holding, even though he has the agricultural experience and training required under paragraph (a). I think it would be quite natural for whoever has to decide—whether it be the county council, or whoever it is—who should get the smallholding, to give the preference to the agricultural worker under a contract of service. Even though by this time the ex-Service man will be an agricultural worker under contract for service, the preference will go to the man who has been an agricultural worker for the longest time.
9.0 p.m.
There is a very great danger. I am not arguing the case for ex-Service men as against agricultural workers. I am keen to see that justice is done to both, and I think that is the point behind the Amendment. Suppose that a man has served in the Army for four years. At the same time, an agricultural worker, through no fault of his own, has been kept on the land. The former may have volunteered to go into the Army or he may have been directed into it; that does not matter. But supposing a number of years later, both apply for a small holding, and their agricultural experience and training are relatively the same, I can visualise the preference being given to the man who has been an agricultural worker for ten years as against the man who has been an agricultural worker for six years and has served in the Army. I think there is a point of substance in the suggestion that there should be level pegging and that an ex-Service man should be given full credit for the years he has spent in the Forces, subject always to the qualification that he has had agricultural experience and training. I am not prepared to suggest in exact terms how the Amendment should read, but I do


suggest that the Minister should not brush the point on one side as being of no substance. I believe it is a point of substance and should be given favourable consideration.

Mr. Parkin: I regret that the discussion on this Amendment has taken rather a harsher turn than I expected. I anticipated that after the Amendment had been moved in general and non-party terms, there would have been a general assurance by the Minister that ex-Service men would in no way suffer in their applications for smallholdings and that the Amendment would then have been gracefully withdrawn. Unfortunately, there has been some argument because the Amendment appears not to have been drafted as well as it might have been. I think the intention of the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) would have been better expressed if the Amendment had come after the word "suitable" instead of the word "given." However, we have had the old argument as to whether or not there should be preference for ex-Service men, and that argument ought to be dead. Unfortunately, it is not dead in the country, and neither is it dead entirely on the benches opposite. The Minister was quite right in pointing out the folly of the idea that ex-Servicemen are a sort of caste apart for the rest of their lives, to be kept happy by minor privileges and charity—a policy which has failed us completely in the past, and which has been replaced by the more modern attitude that the sooner we enable a man to forget that he is an ex-Service man as far as his career is concerned, the better.
There is before us the immediate problem of recruitment to the land, and just because this Debate has gone wrong in the last quarter of an hour or so, it would be unfortunate if it went out from this House that there was any danger that an ex-Service man trying to get a career on the land would lose his chance of getting a smallholding. Therefore, before this discussion closes, I hope the Minister will give an assurance that the ex-Service man who feels that the land is his career will not in the future lose his chance of becoming a smallholder. After all, it is the possibility of becoming a smallholder which is the only incentive. No such consideration arises among farmers' sons. It applies only to the man who enters the industry as a wage earner to

begin with. If the Minister can assure us that by regulation, supervision or by the most definite assurances here, it will be made clear that nothing will stand in the way of an ex-Service man, I am sure we shall all be happy.

Mr. George Brown: Following the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Mr. Parkin) and North Norfolk (Mr. Gooch) may I say none of us would want the ex-Service man to be prejudiced in this respect. On the other hand, in view of the past history of the industry, and the disabilities, handicaps and troubles of the agricultural workers for many years in the past, we must be careful to see that the agricultural workers are not handicapped in obtaining smallholdings in the few years immediately ahead. We are apt to talk about this as though there is some reward for having been an ex-Serviceman in being given a smallholding.
There are two things to be considered. One is the success of the, smallholding scheme. That does mean we must have people who really have had plenty of experience on the land, and that means putting agricultural workers who have not been in the Forces at the head of fellows who have been in the Forces who have not had experience on the land. That has to be faced if we are to make a success of the scheme. The second consideration is the success of the individuals. It is always easy to say we do not want to repeat what happened after the first world war, but hon. Members who say that then slide off very quickly by suggesting that we can do this sort of thing without the trouble that we had after the first world war. I hope the Minister will stand firm, and point out that we do not use this argument in other industries. We do not put it to the engineer coming back from the Forces that he is to have preference over the men who stayed behind.
If a man comes back and gets experience on the land, of if he had experience on the land, or was an agricultural worker, he will stand a chance of getting a smallholding. The hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Byers) said he felt there was something in the Bill which would mean that the agricultural worker who had been on the land 10 years would always get a preference over the fellow who had spent the last six years in the


Forces. He must have a rather suspicious mind, because there is nothing whatever in the Bill that would lead anyone else to make that assumption. I think that what the Minister said is absolutely right, that if an ex-Serviceman has what is held to be the minimum necessary experience to work a smallholding, it is almost certain that, for some time to come, there will be an overhang of sentiment which will give him an advantage over the other chap. I am anxious we should not make this mistake of inviting to happen what happened after the first world war, while disavowing it. I hope the Minister will stand firm. I am prepared, though I was not in the Forces myself, to argue that the agricultural workers have had such a very raw deal until the most recent times that there should be a preference for them over almost anybody else. I hope the Minister will not give way on this principle.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: If my right hon. Friend the Minister will accept what has just been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), I think it will go some way towards satisfying the really legitimate point made by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Byers). What I think is at the basis of this Amendment is, that a man who was an agricultural worker, who went to the Forces, and has gone back to agriculture, should not, by reason of his service in the Forces, be prejudiced by comparison with another applicant for a smallholding, who, for one reason or another, may not have served in the Forces at all, but who has had a continuous period, perhaps, of 10 years' experience in agriculture. After all, what we are asking for, if we put that forward, is simply a reaffirmation of the principle that has been long accepted in the Civil Service and in local government service. In these two branches of activity, if a man goes into the Forces, he loses nothing in seniority, or pension rights, or superannuation, or promotion prospects by reason of his service in the Forces. I think that if the Minister will look at what has been said from that particular point of view he will go some way towards satisfying the points that have been raised in the discussion on this Amendment.

Sir I. Fraser: I will not press this to a Division because, as I said, I do not

want to divide the House on a poignant matter of this sort, as if one party thought more of this group and the other party thought more of that group. If this matter is not thought about between now and the Third Reading, or in another place, and if no opportunity is given for further consideration, I cannot but feel that a prejudice—and I say that advisedly, and without heat or passion—will have developed in the minds of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, and will have stood in the way of the bare justice for which I have asked. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I believe that to be true.
There are two points which I should like to put to the Minister. The first is, that I did not mean to include the peacetime soldier. Everybody knows that the words of the amateur are not those of the experts in Government Departments. Therefore, I should be glad if the Minister would exclude the peacetime soldier. The second point is, I did not mean to give an absolute preference. If there is any doubt about that I should be very pleased to accept any words which make it an equal chance and not a preference at all. I am inviting the Minister to think of suitable words to cover the admirable sentiments expressed by many of his hon. Friends, particularly the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Gooch), who made a very fair speech. If his desire could be carried out we should have some satisfaction. Can we not hope that between now and the time this Bill leaves another place—or with our help in another place if the Minister wishes it—the Minister will find some words which will give the ex-Service man an equal chance and not a preference?

Mr. T. Williams: I rather take exception to the hon. Member's suggestion that there is prejudice, on either the Front Bench or the back benches anywhere in the House, against ex-Service men. That simply is not true. So far as giving an assurance is concerned, the hon. Member must know that the ex-Service man with agricultural experience stands absolutely on a par with any other agricultural worker. Since agricultural experience alone will determine the selection of smallholders, there is no distinction whatever. The selection will be based upon agricultural experience and knowledge,


and nothing else. There will be prejudice against anyone.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 55.—(Default powers of Minister.)

Mr. Marquand: I beg to move, in page 47, line 39, after "Before," to insert "(a)."
Perhaps, in order to make sense of the matter, it would be for the convenience of the House if we also discussed the following Amendment: In page 47, line 39, at the end to insert:
or
(b) coming to a decision on any application made by a smallholdings authority for the revocation of such an order relating to them, being an application made not earlier than twelve months after the making of the order or of any previous application for the revocation thereof.
These Amendments are designed to take account of a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Gooch) and my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. Dye) in Committee, namely, that a smallholdings authority should have an opportunity to make representations to the Minister before he rejected any application by that authority for the revocation of a default order. The Clause already provides that:
Before making an Order … the Minister shall give to the smallholdings authority in question an opportunity of making representations …
These two Amendments provide that where a default order has been made by the Minister, taking over certain functions of the authority because they have not been performed satisfactorily, the smallholdings authority may apply to the Minister for revocation of that order. If they do so apply, the Minister should afford them an opportunity of making representations to him before he rejects that revocation.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 47, line 39, at end, insert:
or
(b) coming to a decision on any application made by a smallholdings authority for the revocation of such an order relating to them, being an application made not earlier than twelve months after the making of the order or of any previous application for the revocation thereof."—[Mr. Marquand.]

CLAUSE 59.—(Constitution and functions of smallholdings committees.)

Amendments made: In page 52, leave out line 1.

In page 52, line 6, leave out from first "of," to "the," in line 7, and insert "the last foregoing Subsection."—[Mr. T. Williams.]

CLAUSE 64.—(Application and repeal of Provisions of Small Holdings and Allotments Acts, 1908 to 1931.)

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Marquand: I beg to move, in page 54, line 23, at the end, to insert:
but subject to any modification so specified.
The purpose of this Amendment is to lead up to the two Government Amendments in respect of the Eighth Schedule. It deals with a point raised in an Amendment put down by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) which was not discussed in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 65.—(Establishment of Agricultural Land Commission and Welsh Agricultural Land Sub-Commission.)

Mr. Marquand: I beg to move, in page 55, line 12, to leave out "vested in the Minister."
This Amendment and the next Amendment are consequential on an Amendment to Clause 65 (1, a) made in Committee. That Amendment provided that the Minister could place under the control of the Agricultural Land Commission, for the purposes of management or farming, not only land vested in the Minister, but land in respect of which the Minister was responsible but not the owner. The effect of these Amendments will be that where the Minister places land at the disposal of the Commission, the Commission will be able to grant tenancies which otherwise would have to be granted by the Minister. In other words, it enables them to deal with all land put at their disposal.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 55, line 15, leave out "tenancies of the land," and insert:
any tenancy of the land which could have been granted by the Minister."—[Mr. Marquand.]

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, in page 55, line 30, at the end, to insert:
(6) The persons appointed to be members of the Commission and the Sub-Commission shall be persons appearing to the Minister to be qualified as having appropriate technical, commercial or administrative qualifications, and one of the persons appointed to be a member of the Commission shall be a person appearing to the Minister to be qualified as having special knowledge and experience of agriculture in Wales.
This Amendment carries out a promise given by the Parliamentary Secretary during the Committee Stage, when he said that he would endeavour to define in broad terms the sort of qualifications members of the Agricultural Land Commission and the Sub-Commission should have, and provide that one member should be a person with special knowledge and experience of agriculture in Wales.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 67.—(Annual report of Commission.)

Sir. T. Dugdale: I beg to move, in page 56, line 34, at the end, to insert:
together with a statement of account in such form as the Minister with the approval of the Treasury may prescribe being a form which shall conform with the best commercial standards and shall show separately the results of any farming operations carried on during that year by the Commission and of the discharge by them during that year of their functions as owners of land.
During the Committee stage we had assurances from both the Minister and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that the accounts of the Land Commission would be published, but there is nothing in the Bill to that effect. We had assurances that certain things would happen, but we had no assurance that provision to see that they did happen would be made in the Statute. We on this side consider it to be of the utmost importance that there should be an instruction in the Clause that the accounts of the Commission should be kept and made public. We are not tied to the actual words of the Amendment, but we hope the Government will accept our suggestion. It is necessary that the accounts shall be published in detail, so that the agricultural industry and the community at large can appreciate the work of the Land Commission.

Major Mott-Radclyffe: I beg to second the Amendment.
It is extremely important that the accounts of the Land Commission should be published as an ordinary profit and loss account. I cannot think of anything more damaging to the general confidence of the farming community than for a farmer, who may be going through a difficult period, to know that the farm next door, which is managed by the Land Commission, is having money poured into it, in an uneconomic fashion, without any attention being paid to the return on the capital invested. That is the way to cause criticism and ill-feeling between the Commission and landowners or owner-occupiers who are farming under their own auspices. It is important, for the sake of the reputation of the Commission and the community as a whole, that the accounts of the Commission, on a profit and loss basis should be published, so that all can see whether farming under the Commission is efficient.

Mr. T. Williams: I said in the Standing Committee that I had some sympathy with the object outlined by this Amendment, which was then withdrawn. I explained at that time that this statutory requirement was not necessary because, under Section 5 of the Exchequer and Audits Department Act, 1921, the Treasury have power to direct the Ministry to prepare trading accounts. It is their intention to do so. The accounts will ultimately be published. The land, however, will he owned by the Minister, and the direction will go to the Ministry who, in turn, will request the Commission to prepare trading accounts for publication. It was asked in Committee why this Commission should not do as the Coal Board, the Electricity Board, or the Transport Board will be obliged to do? The analogy is not quite good. They are completely independent boards. They are very large owners of property, engage in commercial undertakings, and their expenses are not borne on a Ministerial vote. That, of course, is the fundamental difference. The Land Commission will manage or farm land on behalf of the Minister, and their expenses will be borne on the Minister's vote, and the receipts will be paid into the Exchequer. The Coal Board is not a Government Department, and the Treasury cannot direct them to produce accounts; therefore, arrangements must be made for that in the Bill. In the opposite direction, the Treasury can direct a Government Department, and I have


already stated that it is their intention to direct the Ministry of Agriculture to prepare and publish the accounts of the Land Commission. I see no necessity, therefore, for this Amendment, and I hope hon. Members will not press for it.

Mr. G. Williams: The Minister's assurance is not nearly good enough. He agrees in principle that the accounts should be shown for the convenience of everyone. He says that he can direct the Commission to do so, but is he going to do that? He assures us that he is, but we want to have that in the Bill. The hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. M. Philips Price) said, "I hope that, in fact, he will do it." If there is doubt in the minds of the Minister's own supporters, there is even more doubt in the minds of hon. Members on this side of the House.

Mr. Philips Price: I made that remark not to cast suspicion or doubt on the Minister. I only expressed an opinion, and I was satisfied with his assurance.

Mr. G. Williams: We on this side of the House have heard so many assurances, repeated so many times, that we want some definite assurance in the Bill. I feel rather strongly that the Commission should account for its farming operations, and also for its farming operations. Its accounts should be vetted by the Auditor-General and be given his certificate. Then everyone would know that they had been properly audited. We also want to see them in concrete form so that we can make inquiries, criticise and, above all, make useful suggestions. Even though the accounts may be published in some form or another it would take us so long to delve into all the payments to find out the exact position that that would probably never be done. We want the accounts and the report. The Minister does not want to hold these from us, and as he has given away practically nothing today, I hope that he will fall in with this Amendment, because Socialist Utopias sometimes cost a lot of money. These figures may be interesting, and we want the right to receive them in conjunction with the report.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Baldwin: I support the Amendment and ask the Minister for rather more than

he has given us in the way of an assurance. I support what the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. G. Williams) said about the Minister not being very forthcoming yesterday and today. In my cricket team, I think he would make a good opening batsman and not give way very easily. I appeal to the Minister not only not to publish these accounts in such a form that no one but an expert can find out what the truth is, but to publish them in detail, so that those of us who are in the job can see whether a particular farm is paying or whether it is losing money. The Minister has here a wonderful opportunity of providing himself with figures which will be realistic. It seems to me that when the farmers' leaders and his Department have to meet at the end of February and settle prices, they very often get so mixed up by the economic experts on both sides that they never arrive at figures which are profitable to the farmer. If the Minister want a demonstration as to whether or not a farm is paying, what better demonstration can he have, or give to the farming community, than to publish the accounts of the job he is doing himself, not publishing them in a form covering two or three counties, but unit by unit, so that we can tell what he is doing? If he does not do that, we shall suspect that he is not doing very well, and I ask him to publish these accounts in such a form and in such detail that we can see what he is doing.

Mr. T. Williams: I think I can give an answer without wasting the time of the House. The Treasury will direct the Ministry of Agriculture to have these accounts prepared, and whoever the Minister of Agriculture may be, he dare do no other than respond to that direction. With regard to what the hon. Member said about concessions, surely he cannot forget that two out of every three Amendments we have been moving today are concessions to the Opposition?

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 68.—(Establishment and functions of County Agricultural Executive Committees.)

Mr. Vane: I beg to move, in page 57, line 11, after "Committee," to insert:
shall appoint an Estate Management Subcommittee and.
The Subsection will then read so that a county agricultural committee


shall appoint an Estate Management Subcommittee and may with the approval of the Minister, and shall if the Minister so requires, appoint one or more sub-committees.
We consider that the estates management sub-committee is in a different position from all other sub-committees which the county agricultural executive committee may think fit to appoint. Hon. Members on both sides will remember that the war agricultural committees grew up as farming committees, dealing definitely with the farmers' problems—with tenant farmers' and occupiers' problems, and the staffing of those committees both as regards members and professional advisers was based on those original grounds. Under this Bill parallel functions are being added, and we now find that a county agricultural executive committee will be in a position to exercise the same discipline, with the same sanctions, against an owner of land as it has for some time exercised against occupiers. I think hon. Members would agree that the professional training necessary to assess estate management problems is something rather different from the training and experience necessary to assess farming problems. Whereas the professional training of an estate agent, as I am sure will be borne out by hon. Members on that side as well as on this, includes a certain knowledge of farming, I do not think the training of a farmer or of an agricultural worker by and large includes training in estate management problems. It may perhaps be an improvement if in the future it does, but at present it does not, and therefore I would suggest that if the problems which will arise are to be properly assessed it is necessary that the people who do the assessment should be qualified by some appropriate training.
It may be advanced that this subcommittee is only one of several, but I submit that it is different, because in some counties, for instance, horticulture may play a sufficiently big role for it to be thought worth while to set up a hor0ticultural sub-committee. In other counties it may not play such a big role. In some counties the number of agricultural workers employed in proportion to the number of independent farmers may be very large. In others, where the family farmers are the rule it may be very small so that in some counties the work of such

a body may not be great. In some counties it will be found that the problems of estate management are now going to be on an equal basis with the problems of practical farming. Since the Minister has told us a hundred times if he has told us once during the Debates on this Bill that all he wants is to build a structure, in which all parties to the industry will have confidence, I feel that he can do little less than accept this Amendment.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to second the Amendment.
Those who served on the Committee upstairs know that the Minister is sympathetic towards this particular proposal. In fact, if I may remind the Minister, the question was raised upstairs by the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane), who moved this Amendment when he asked the Minister to consider making it compulsory for county executive committees to appoint an estate sub-committee. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister thereupon, in the words of the OFFICIAL REPORT "indicated assent." The question was consequently not pursued because of that desire for brevity and economy of time, which has characterised the Opposition in their desire to accelerate the Bill, and we left the matter and went on to consider another point. It is, therefore, with considerable hope that we move this Amendment. We hope that the right hon. Gentleman will go further than merely indicating his assent by nodding his head and that he will accept this Amendment.
This is a very reasoned Amendment, because estate management forms almost half of the Bill apart from Part 1. Certainly one half of Part 3 of the Bill deals with estate management, and it is with such technical work that the county executive committees will have to deal. In order to do it it is essential that they should have persons upon the committees who will know this business. They will have to be co-opted, because they will have to have experience in what is a very highly technical and highly qualified profession. Therefore, in order to ensure that they have advantage of professional advice, which they may require at any time and under certain circumstances, we feel that it should be possible to have these sub-committees operating. They will add to the stability of the committees, and if these permanent sub-committees are


always at the beck and call of the executive committees it will be to the general advantage.
In a provision which will subsequently be before the House on the Ninth Schedule, it is laid down that:
A County Agricultural Executive Committee may add to any sub-committee established by them persons not being members of the Committee who shall continue as members of the sub-committee for such period as the Committee may determine.
Therefore, they have the power to do this, and all that we want is to ensure that those powers are used, because it is of no advantage to the well-being of the agricultural community if the powers which are granted in the Bill are not put into operation. We believe that it is essential that there shall be this background of technical knowledge available in regard to all the manifold problems which will come before the committee, and we move this Amendment which is to render it obligatory to have a technical subcommittee.

Mr. T. Williams: While I am unable to accept the Amendment, I can give the hon. Gentlemen a definite assurance that it is our intention to have an estate management sub-committee associated with every county executive committee. I am sure that the hon. Gentlemen will appreciate that we shall require a horticultural sub-committee in some areas where horticulture is of importance. We shall also require a labour sub-committee and a machinery sub-committee in every area, but if we embody in the Bill a statutory requirement to appoint one kind of committee I shall never be able to persuade the horticultural counties that they will also have theirs. I will, however, give a definite and clear-cut assurance that in every county executive committee there will be an estate management sub-committee as soon as this Bill comes into operation.

Major Mott-Radclyffe: While we are very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his assurance—which we accept as being given in perfect good faith—we do not follow his argument. If he gives an assurance that every county committee will have such a sub-committee, surely he could put this in the Bill? He agrees with our contention that estate management is a technical subject. In his own words, the State is to be a model landlord, and therefore those who conduct the management of estates on behalf of the State have to be very highly efficient in the profession of estate management. There is no difference of opinion about that. We accept the Minister's assurance, but why not put it in the Bill? The argument that because you insert in the Bill a statutory obligation to set up an estate management subcommittee every other interest that may be involved when the State takes over an agricultural holding must also have a subcommittee, is a completely false one. I must press the point that although throughout the Committee stage upstairs and, indeed here yesterday, we had a number of assurances from the right hon. Gentleman, all of which we accept as being given in perfect good faith, we are not legislating only for the time during which the right hon. Gentleman occupies the position he now holds. If another Minister should take his place what would be the fate of these assurances then?

Mr. T. Williams: The hon. and gallant Member himself might be the next Minister, and surely we could trust him to continue to implement them?

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 86; Noes, 230.

Division No. 239.]
AYES
[9.44 p.m.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Conant, Maj. R. J. E
Galbraith, Cmdr T D.


Baldwin, A. E.
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Grant, Lady


Barlow, Sir J.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Gridley, Sir A.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)


Birch, Nigel
Crowdar, Capt. John E
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.


Bower, N.
Darling, Sir W. Y.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Davidson, Viscountess
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Braithwaite, Lt-Comdr. J, G.
Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.
Hope, Lord J


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Drayson, G. B.
Howard, Hon A


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T (Richmond)
Hurd, A.


Carson, E.
Duthie, W. S.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)


Challen, C.
Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Jeffreys, General Sir G


Channon, H
Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Jennings, R


Clarke, Col. R. S
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M
Joynson-Hicks, Hon L W


Clifton-Brawn, Lt.-Col. G
Gage, C
Lambert, Hon. G




Law, Rt Hon. R. K.
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Neven-Spence, Sir B
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Nicholson, G
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R A. F


Lloyd, Maj Guy (Renfrew, E.)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H
Vane, W. M. F.


Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Osborne, C.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


MacDonald. Sir M. (Inverness)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Wheatley, Colonel M. u.


Mackeson, Brig. H. R
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Maitland, Comdr. J W
Raikes, H. V.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Ramsay, Maj. S.
Willoughby de Eresby Lord


Marshall, D (Bodmin)
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)
York, C


Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Ropner, Col. L



Maude, J, C.
Sanderson, Sir F
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Molson, A. H E.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Mr. Drewe and Mr. Studholme


Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W





NOES.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Gooch, E. G
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Adams, W T. (Hammersmith, south)
Goodrich, H E.
Murray, J. D.


Allen, A. C (Bosworth)
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Nally, W


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Greenwood, A W [...] (Heywood)
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Alpass, J H.
Grey, C F.
Nichol, Mrs M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Anderson, F (Whitehaven)
Grierson, E
Nicholls, H. R (Stratford)


Attewell, H. C
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Noel-Baker. Rt. Hon. P J (Derby)


Ayles, W. H
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Ayrton Gould, Mrs[...]
Gunter, R. J
Oliver, G. H.


Baird J
Guy, W. H.
Paget, R T.


Barstow, P G
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Paling, Rt Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Barton, C.
Hale, Leslie
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Battley, J R
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R
Palmer, A. M. F


Bechervaise, A E
Hannan, W (Maryhill)
Pargiter, G. A


Berry, H.
Hardy, E. A.
Parker, J.


Beswick, F
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Parkin, B T.


Binns, J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Blenkinsop, A
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Pearson, A


Blyton, W. R
Herbison, Miss M,
Pearl, Capt T. F.


Boardman, H.
Hewitson, Capt. M
Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)


Bowden, Fig.-Offr. H. W.
Hobson, C R
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Holman, P
Price, M. Philips


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Proctor, W. T.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
House, G
Pursey, Cmdr. H


Brook, D (Halifax)
Hoy, J
Randall, H. E


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hudson, J. H (Ealing, W.)
Ranger, J


Brown, George (Belper)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rees-Williams, D. R


Brown, T. J (Ince)
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Reeves, J.


Buchanan, G.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Burke, W A.
Irving, W. J.
Robens, A.


Butler, H W (Hackney. S.)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon G A.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Byers, Frank
Janner, B.
Roberts, W (Cumberland, N.)


Chetwynd, G R
Jay, D. P. T.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Cobb, F A.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Rogers, G. H. R.


Cocks, F S
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St Pancras, S.E.)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Collindridge, F
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Royle, C.


Collins, V J.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Sargood, R


Colman, Miss G.[...]
Keenan, W
Scott-Elliot, W


Comyns, Dr. L.
Kenyon, C.
Segal, Dr. S.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K (Camberwell, N W.)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E
Shackleton, E. A. A


Corlett, Dr. J.
Kinley, J.
Sharp. Granville


Corvedale, Viscount
Kirby, B. V
Shawcross, C N (Widnes)


Cove, W. G
Lavers, S.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Crawley, A.
Lee, F (Hulme)
Shurmer, P


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Lewis, A W. J. (Upton)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Lewis, T (Southampton)
Simmons, C J.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Lipton, Lt.-Col M
Skinnard, F. W


Davies, Hadyn (St Pancras, S.W.)
Longden, F
Smith, C (Colchester)


Diamond, J
Lyne, A. W
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Dodds, N. N.
McAdam. W
Smith, H. N (Nottingham, S.)


Dumpleton, C. W
McGhee, H G
Smith, S. H (Hull, S.W.)


Ede, Rt. Hon J C
McKay, J (Wallsend)
Soskice, Maj Sir F


Edelman, M.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Sparks, J A


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
McKinlay, A S
Stamford, W


Evans, John (Ogmore)
McLeavy, F.
Steele, T.


Evans, S N (Wednesbury)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Stephen, C.


Ewart, R
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Fairhurst, F
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Sylvester, G. O


Farthing, W. J
Marquand, H A
Symonds, A. L.


Fernyhough, E
Mathers, G.
Taylor, H. B (Mansfield)


Field, Capt. W J
Mellish, R. J,
Taylor, R J. (Morpeth)


Foot, M. M
Middleton, Mrs. L
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Mitchison, G. R
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Monslow, W
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Ganley, Mrs. C. S
Moody, A. S.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Gibson, C. W.
Morgan, Dr. H. B
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Morley, R.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)







Thurtle, Ernest
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Wise, Major F. J


Titterington, M. P
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Woods, G. S


Tolley, L.
While, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Wyatt, W.


Turner-Samuels, M
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Yates, V. F.


Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Vernon, Maj. W F
Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Viant, S. P.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Zilliacus, K.


Wadsworth, G
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)



Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Warbey, W. N.
Willis, E.
Mr. Snow and Mr. Popplewell.


Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Wills, Mrs. E. A

CLAUSE 70.—(Establishment, constitution and procedure of Agricultural Land Tribunals.)

Major Mott-Radclyffe: I beg to move, in page 58, line 36, after "divisions," to insert:
and for the hearing of any proposal referred to it in public or in private as the person by whom such reference is made shall require.
We think it should be open to an appellant to say whether or not he wishes the proceedings to be taken in front of the land tribunal to be heard in public or private. I do not wish to delay the House by elaborating the argument, which is perfectly plain.

Colonel Clarke: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. T. Williams: There is no need for this Amendment, because that is exactly what happens at the moment. Of the last 26 appeals that have been heard, 17 have been heard in public with the consent of the applicant, and nine have been heard in private at the request of the applicant. Therefore, it is left for the applicant to define whether or not he would like the appeal to be made in public.

Major Mott-Radclyffe: In view of the Minister's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 71.—(References to Agricultural Land Tribunal.)

Colonel Clarke: I beg to move, in page 59, line it, at the end, to insert:
Provided that a copy of such report shall, at the request of any person who was a party to such reference, be supplied by the Tribunal to that, person
The land tribunal, in a sense, passes judgment on a man. Therefore, we think it is desirable that there should be available to all the parties appearing before it a copy of the judgment. We realise that it may be the intention of the Government to provide for this by orders for the procedure of tribunals, and, if so, perhaps

the Minister will give an assurance to that effect? We feel that anybody who comes before a tribunal, and receives a judgment, should have a copy of it as he would have in any other court of law.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to second Amendment.
The point about which I am afraid in regard to these tribunals, from which appeal is refused, is that there is a certain amount of question as to the privacy with which they are to be conducted. The one thing one has to avoid is any appearance of their being a kind of Star Chamber. When the appellant goes to the tribunal, he should have the right to know exactly what report is made. It would be only fair, open and aboveboard. He is entitled to know on what basis the Minister takes such action as he may pursue as a result of the tribunal's consideration.

Mr. T. Williams: I rather think that a provision of this kind would be undesirable. After all, the tribunal's report is to the Minister, and the contents must be regarded as confidential. All that the applicant requires to know is what decision the tribunal has reached. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That decision is conveyed to him. Hon. Members will recall that they were anxious that the decision of appeal tribunals should be final and binding upon the Minister. They are final and binding upon the Minister. Therefore, the decision of the tribunal is final. There is no appeal against it. If the Minister had to send a copy of the detailed report of the tribunal to the applicant, it would, I feel, influence the tribunal when they were sending their report to the Minister. I repeat, since the appeal is final and binding upon both the applicant and the Minister, that the report of the tribunal must remain a confidential matter.

Major Mott-Radclyffe: The right hon. Gentleman's argument is astounding. The right hon. Gentleman has already refused


an Amendment from this side proposing appeal to a court of law after a case has been turned down by the tribunal. He is now asking us to accept the extraordinary position that where a dispossession order is made and an appeal goes to a tribunal, the report shall not be published but shall be confidential to the Minister, to use his own words. The unfortunate individual, whether he be landowner or tenant, concerned in the appeal is merely to be told by the Minister whether the answer is "Yes" or "No," according to the way in which the tribunal has decided, upon the evidence before it.
I must remind the right hon. Gentleman—I should not have thought it necessary for him to be reminded—of the fact that in any other court of law all the evidence is published. If an appeal goes to a county court or to the House of Lords, all the evidence is printed for the public to read so that everybody can know every item of the evidence that has been submitted. The ultimate sanction of dispossession is a very serious one to inflict upon an individual, and we are now told that the proceedings may not be published but are to be sent confidentially to the Minister. The unfortunate individual concerned has to be satisfied with knowing the result. No one who is concerned with the case is to have any opportunity of reading the evidence or to have any idea of the basis, whether legal or factual, upon which the decision was taken. This is a most astonishing performance, and I hope that the Minister will reconsider the matter.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I support this Amendment. In my opinion, a very important principle is involved here. Here we have tile submission of a question, which may be of the greatest importance to the parties involved, to an agricultural land tribunal, a properly constituted judicial body. It is perfectly possible for this tribunal in coming to its decision to act on an entirely wrong principle, or to make a mistake. If that occurs, the decision it has given is given behind closed doors. The person who is a party to it does not get to know the grounds of the decision, and if some wrong principle has been pursued, or some grievous mistake has been made, he has no right to raise the matter, or challenge it in any way.

That seems to me to be so utterly contrary to every legal principle and judicial practice that I ask the Minister to look at this matter again. It cannot be right to come to decisions of this kind behind closed doors.
Why cannot this be done in the open? The party concerned is entitled to know why the decision has been arrived at. There is no need to go into detail. If there is something of a private nature, that has nothing to do with this report. The idea that this should be a confidential report to the Minister shocks all my ideas of judicial practice. I cannot help feeling that the Minister has not looked into this matter very thoroughly, because it is quite contrary to what the Clause should be. I ask him to look at it again, and to alter it so that the party concerned will know the grounds on which the decision has been made.

Captain Crookshank: I hope we shall not get into too much of a tangle over this. I do not know that we have all thought of this tribunal exactly as the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) has thought of it, as a judicial inquiry. The Minister said on a previous Amendment that these hearings were to be in public. Therefore, to that extent, anyone interested will know what goes on. In order that we should not get into a tangle, I would like the Minister to tell us what he anticipates would happen under Clause 71. The Bill says that the tribunal shall determine
whether the conditions as to which the Minister must be satisfied before taking the action are fulfilled, and whether, having regard to their determination under the foregoing paragraph and to all the circumstances of the case, the Minister should or should not take the action proposed.
Having determined that, they report to the Minister, and the Minister has no option but to act in accordance with what they have decided. There is no question of appeal here. In the absence of the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester, we discussed the question of appeal to a court of law. Unfortunately, we were defeated. I have no doubt he would have supported us on that occasion.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I was not here.

Captain Crookshank: A grave dereliction of duty. Having, had the hearing, which the Minister has told us is to be public, the tribunal has to decide whether


it is satisfied that certain conditions about which the Minister has to be satisfied have been fulfilled, and whether what the Minister proposes to do should or should not be done. The Minister must know the sort of ideas that he would like the land tribunal to carry out. Is it his idea that there should be an enormously long report on every case from the tribunal, or might it be a case of Question A, "Yes" or "No"; question B, "Yes" or "No"? If it is as short as that, I do not think that the question of a copy going to anybody makes so very much difference, because as the Minister, under the Bill, has to carry out the instructions of the tribunal, the short answer "Yes" or "No" will obviously be conveyed to the person who has made the reference to the tribunal.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I do not think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has understood the point.

Captain Crookshank: I am asking the Minister for his point of view. If I am wrong, he will tell me so. I do not want two people to tell me that I am wrong. I am asking the Minister whether, in fact, he thinks there will be a long report on these cases from the tribunal, or whether he merely expects "Yes" or "No," because on the answer to that turns the importance of this Amendment. If there are to be arguments, so to speak, thrashed out like a judgment from the House of Lords, with everybody giving his views, that is one thing. If it is a case of a short answer being given that the Minister is right or wrong, I do not think it is frightfully important that the persons concerned should have a copy. If a long report is to come from the tribunal, I should be inclined to say that my hon. Friends have got on to a good point in this Amendment.

Mr. T. Williams: The appeal tribunal is a perfectly independent body. It will, therefore, decide whether to send a very formal report, which means "Yes" or "No," to the Minister, or whether the report should be more detailed. There are no instructions to them, and, consequently, it is left entirely within their authority. Therefore, I do not see the substance of sending reports to the appellant. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) said that his judicial ideas were all shocked; they are frequently shocked.

If I were taken to court either for driving too fast, which is not too likely, or consuming too much liquor, which again is not very likely, and if I were fined£5 and costs, I should know all about it, and that would be the only report I should have.

Mr. Byers: Some of these decisions by the agricultural land tribunals will deal with dispossession, which is a much bigger matter than the Minister has suggested. I understand that in certain cases reasons will be given, but given secretly. I quite accept the argument about the formal decisions, but if reasons are given, has not the appellant the right to know?

Mr. Williams: It makes very little difference whether he does or not. Hon. Members insisted upon the decisions of the appeal tribunals being final and binding on the Minister. The Minister, therefore, has no say once a decision has been given. Accordingly, it is only the decision that matters, and the Minister is powerless to interfere, as is the applicant.

Mr. Byers: But does not the Minister see that if reasons are to be given in secret, justice will not seem to be done? That is the point.

Mr. Williams: The hon. Member is wrong, because as I explained a few minutes ago, of the last 26 cases dealt with, 17 were dealt with in public with the approval and assent of the applicants. All the evidence was given there.

Mr. Byers: That is not a report.

Mr. Williams: But the case is dealt with and the evidence for and against is given in public. Nine of them were held in private at the request of the applicant himself, but he heard all the evidence given for and against him. Therefore, he knew all the facts and there was nothing that could interest him beyond, the final decision. I hate to detain the House at this late hour, but I could quote from a case which I have here. I sought to ascertain, case by case, how things were working out and whether the results were fair and reasonable. There was a case where a person was taken before a tribunal and, in their wisdom, the tribunal thought they ought to suspend for a time and invite the county executive committee to give that same


person another direction for another short period to see how he went on. That demonstrates the informality of these appeal tribunals. There can be nothing harsh about them and nothing to shock the judicial instincts of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels).

Mr. Turner-Samuels: The Minister is going on the principle that the decision of the tribunal is binding upon him. That is not the point. The point is that, if reasons are stated, they may be based upon a wrong principle or upon a mistake. The party who suffers by that would then challenge that decision. That is the point. But if it is secret—

Mr. Williams: Where would it be challenged?

Mr. Turner-Samuels: In the courts.

Mr. Speaker: I would remind hon. Members that we are now on Report stage; we are not in Committee.

General Sir George Jeffreys: I beg the Minister to reconsider his attitude. One point which might weigh with him is that if this Amendment were accepted and if these reports were to be made, it would not in any way weaken the position of the tribunal. It would give practically no extra trouble to anybody, but it would give great satisfaction to those immediately concerned. There is a feeling on both sides of the House in favour of the Amendment. It is a thing which would cost no money and little extra trouble. Will not the Minister consent to these reports being published and furnished to the people concerned? I think many hon. Members know that one of the weaknesses of the war agricultural committees has been the atmosphere of secrecy in which they have worked. All kinds of rumours have got about in counties and districts about the reasons which have actuated the war agricultural committees in arriving at certain decisions. It is better that the reasons should be known publicly and that there should be no doubt in the minds of those concerned.

Mr. T. Williams: I do not feel the necessity for accepting the Amendment. However, I will gladly undertake to see what is possible, after consultation with the chairmen of a few of these tribunals.

Colonel Clarke: In view of that promise, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 72.—(Provisions as to land lying partly in one area and partly in another.).

Amendment made: In page 59, line 33, after the first "or," insert "by or"—[Mr. Marquand.]

CLAUSE 75.—(Power to obtain agricultural statistics.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 61, line 10, at the end, to insert:
the time at which any use thereof was begun or will become fully effective.
This Amendment, and the next succeeding Amendment, are designed to meet a point which was argued by hon. Members opposite during the Committee stage. Hon. Members sought to obtain some kind of limit to the time, either in the future or in the past, by reference to which the information specified in paragraph (c) of Clause 75 (1) could be required. The Parliamentary Secretary, in replying to the Debate in Committee, undertook to consider this particular argument, and, as a result of this reconsideration, we have placed these Amendments on the Order Paper.
Hon. Members will observe that the Amendments really accomplish two things. They entitle the Minister to inquire both a year back and a year forward, but, at the same time, they introduce, as it were, a sort of cushion enabling him to ask the time by which any use was begun, and will become fully effective, the emphasis being laid upon the word "fully", in various types of agricultural produce. There may be an importance attaching to the first period by reference to which one can say that produce becomes really mature produce, as distinct from being in the incipient growing stage. I think the Amendments do meet the substance of the arguments put by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I hope the House will approve.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 61, line 11, to leave out from first "produce," to end, and insert
at any time during the period beginning one year before, and ending one year after, the time at which the information is required to be furnished."—[The Solicitor-General.]

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 61, line 25, after "or," to insert "employed by the occupier."
This, again, is a concession to arguments advanced by hon. Gentlemen opposite on the Committee stage. The apprehension was expressed, with regard to line 25, that the inquiry might really range over far too wide a scope, and the Minister was pressed to introduce wording which should make it perfectly clear that, with regard to those persons engaged in the disposal of produce, the inquiry should only relate to employees of the actual producer. It was argued that, under the wording of the Clause as it stood, there was no such limitation, and that the inquiry might range over employees who had no connection with the producer of the produce in question. I hope the House will approve of this Amendment, which is introduced to meet the wishes of hon. Members opposite.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 81.—(Acquisition of land by Minister to ensure full and efficient use thereof.)

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I think that, in discussing the next Amendment—to page 64, line 31—the two following Amendments may also be discussed—in page 64, line 40, leave out paragraph (b); in page 65, line 4, leave out paragraph (c).

Sir T. Dugdale: I beg to move, in page 64, line 31, to leave out Paragraph (a).
We have now come to Clause 81, which, from our point of view on this side of the House, is one of the most objectionable Clauses of the whole Measure, because, under it, it is possible for the Minister to override the whole of the machinery set up under Part 11 of the Bill. In Committee we had an Amendment on the Order Paper to delete these three paragraphs in order that we might elicit from the Minister exactly what he had in mind regarding them, and how and when he proposed to use them, because Clause 81 (2) says:
The Minister may acquire by compulsory purchase or hiring in accordance with the provisions of this Act in that behalf any land as to which he is satisfied that its acquisition by him is necessary in order to put to full and efficient use for agriculture land acquired by him under the last foregoing subsection.

The last foregoing Subsection comprises paragraphs (a), (b) and (c).

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Marquand: I thought we might have heard more arguments than we have from the Opposition on the proposals they have made. Paragraph (a) gives the Minister power to acquire land where he feels that it would not be fully and efficiently used under private ownership because the fixed equipment required would be more than could reasonably be provided under private ownership. Examples of the sort of case in mind are the wide areas of neglected land which exist in certain parts of the country. This land is potentially very productive. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where"?] So far, I have spoken about three sentences. If hon. Members will wait, I will try to give them examples. There are examples where land which was not fully used for agricultural purposes before the war was brought into use during the war, and where it was necessary to bring the wide powers which the State possesses into use for that purpose. There was land where there were no houses for the workers and no roads on which to get the produce away, and, in many cases, where there was inadequate drainage. During the war, many of these areas were brought into full agricultural use by prisoner-of-war labour and by the Women's Land Army, and the State was able to provide capital, equipment and labour in a way which private enterprise had been unable to do.
The emphasis in this Clause is that private enterprise and the private owner could not "reasonably be expected." In other words, what is envisaged is a situation where there is land which could be fully and efficiently used to produce the nation's food, but where the owner is not in a position to capitalise that land or to provide equipment for its full exploitation. The best example which I can quote is that of Romney Marsh, which, I am told, comprises about 50,000 acres, and which, before the war, was used almost entirely for sheep grazing. Admittedly it is good sheep grazing land, but it is also highly productive land for crops. During the war the tillage area was increased from a few hundred acres to 16,000 acres, and the crops obtained have been some of the best in the country. There are only two or three small villages in the area and there


are no houses to accommodate the labour at present required. It is estimated that if the same tillage area as was reached during the War years through the use of prisoner-of-war labour, the Women's Land Army, or by any other type of labour is to be maintained, houses for some 500 additional permanent workers will be required. In addition, there are few roads in the area, and concrete roads will have to be constructed if the land is to be used for tillage purposes.
It is getting late, and I need not expand this argument. Sufficient to say that my right hon. Friend the Minister is aware from practical experience during the war that there are considerable areas of land in this country which could be fully and efficiently used for the production of the nation's food, where a large capital provision is necessary, which we might not reasonably expect from private owners—and the emphasis is on the word "reasonably." If hon. Members opposite admit that there is any land capable of efficient use for agriculture on which private owners cannot reasonably be expected to do the work or provide the equipment, what do they propose other than this provision? If there is such land in existence and private owners cannot make the necessary provision, do they want the nation's interests to be sacrificed for the interests of private ownership? If they say there is no such land, why worry? If no such land exists and the circumstances to which I have referred do not obtain, nothing need be done and there is no need to worry at all. I would like to know which attitude hon. Members opposite take. Do they say that there is no such land, or do they say that although there is such land, and although the private owner cannot deal with it, they will, nevertheless, deny the right of the State to use that land?
May I pass to paragraph (b) which raises a similar point? It concerns the case where extensive capital equipment has already been provided, but the maintenance costs would be so high that private owners could not reasonably be expected to maintain the capital equipment in efficient order. There are some examples of this which occurred during the war when, under the exigencies of war, the necessity for extending the area of cultivation in order to acquire sufficient

foodstuffs led to the widespread development by the Ministry of extensive drainage works, the construction of sea walls and that kind of thing which did not exist before, where land has been reclaimed and extensively developed for the use of the nation. If private owners are able to undertake this work there is nothing in the Bill to prevent them from doing so, but if they cannot reasonably be expected to undertake the work it would be a tragedy to let this land go out of cultivation, again in defence of some principle of private property.
Lastly, there is the case under paragraph (c), where the effect of the Amendment would be to deprive the Minister of powers of compulsory acquisition in cases where agricultural land has been severed with the result that the farms concerned are no longer economic units. This is a very simple case, and in this instance, perhaps, there will be no division in principle between us. There may well be a division in principle on paragraphs (a) and (b), but on paragraph (c) I think it is merely a matter of convenience. From time to time, agricultural land has to be taken over for non-agricultural purposes. It is regrettable, but it is necessary. For the construction of roads under town and country planning schemes and the like, agricultural land is taken over for nonagricultural purposes, and, as a result, farms are split up. Particularly when motorways are constructed, the problems of severance become very great indeed. Farms are split in such a way that you get pieces of them left on both sides of a road.
10.30 p.m.
The only satisfactory way to remedy this is to secure a redistribution of the land so that the farm lies together on one side of the road or railway as the case may be. This has happened voluntarily in some places, but in a far larger number of cases farmers have tried to carry on under the increased difficulties caused by such severance. Although cattle creeps or bridges can be provided in certain cases, they are costly and far from satisfactory. This paragraph gives the Minister power, when severance has occurred or is going to take place, to buy the severed portion of the farm. These severed portions may be sold to adjoining farmers so as to create economic units. This paragraph is simply one designed to take care of the actual geographical difficulties where farms are


severed in this way. I think that no reasonable man, whatever his political principles, would disagree with this intention. The other two cases may be somewhat different in principle, but I can assure hon. Members that the Government have no intention of giving way on these paragraphs.

Mr. Baldwin: Let us be candid and say what we think about this Clause. It is a backdoor effort at nationalisation of the land.

Mr. Alpass: So much the better.

Mr. Baldwin: If that effort is to be made let us have it as a straight issue and fight it out in the proper way.
The Minister has stated that there is land in this country which could not be carried on economically by the private individual, and asks us to say what we want done. I make this challange to the Minister, that if he can find any land which the State can carry on economically, I can find men who will carry it on more economically. It is no argument to say that the private individual cannot put up the capital to provide the roads and houses, and so forth. If the proposition is that it should be done, and if the State is going to do it, then the private individual should be allowed a chance to do it. This is a matter of catching hold of the land and keeping out the private individual.

Mr. Marquand: I tried to emphasise that where private enterprise can reasonably be expected to do this, and can reasonably carry it out, no objection will be raised.

Mr. Baldwin: That is an indication that if a body of men wish to take over Romney Marsh, the Minister will be prepared to hand it over, and also to hand over other stretches of land. If that is a promise, I have nothing further to say. But if the Minister is going to take hold of this land and deny the private individual a chance, we object to this Clause.

Mr. Vane: No attempt has been made to answer the question put to the Paymaster-General by my hon. Friend as to why it is necessary to have this procedure, which completely cuts out all the safeguards which the Minister so frequently underlined in Part 11 of the Bill. First, we were given a long description which seemed to be something to do with the Western Desert until the Paymaster-General told

us that it referred to Romney Marsh. But whether it was to do with the Western Desert or with the Romney Marsh, the amount of capital which can be successfully invested in any agricultural land is governed by the quality of that land and the economic state of the industry. If money is put up by the Government it is exactly the same as if the money were put up by a private person. Money put up by the Government has no special magic properties to make it different from money provided by anyone else. I felt that some such distinction was implied by the Paymaster-General's speech.

Mr. Marquand: I would like, if I may, to clear that up. I was not suggesting that such was the case. I was suggesting that there may be cases in which the amount of money required for the land or its equipment was so vast that to provide it would be beyond the reach of private owners.

Mr. Vane: I cannot accept that point of view because presumably when it comes to borrowing money, or having any security, if the land is in the hands of one person security is as good as if it is in the hands of another. If occasions have arisen, as the Paymaster-General said, where equipment on the land was so expensive that it is not economical that it should be maintained, probably it is in the national interest that that excess of equipment should be dismantled rather than that an absurd maintenance charge should be carried from year to year. Only some public corporation could possibly suffer a charge of that kind. I agree with the Paymaster-General that something can be said for sub-paragraph (c) where land has been severed and we might find odd scraps of land which might be uneconomical. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that it was his intention to dispose of the land to neighbouring farmers and that he was favourably disposed to selling any small scraps that come into his hands. If, as the Paymaster-General tried to explain, circumstances arise where an owner is not fulfilling his responsibility, surely, if the Minister is sincere about this, the correct thing to do is to have these two paragraphs taken out of the Bill and to proceed against the owner of the land under the elaborate procedure in Part II.

Mr. W. Roberts: There are tracts of land which it is uneconomic for private owners to cultivate properly. As one


example, which has not been mentioned, I would give parts of the Fens which were only brought to cultivation between the wars in spite of many years of Conservative Government [HON. MEMBERS: "And Liberal"]. For the 20 odd years between the wars, at any rate. I was not going back further than that. The Fens were not cultivated because there were no roads and it did not seem to the owners there, in spite of the very high fertility of the land, worth while to make any roads. They had to be made by the State. On what terms they were finally handed over I do not know, but the expense was never fully carried by the owners. It was done by the Government as a war measure. There are probably other tracts of land which still can be improved in the same way. I am not, therefore, against Clause 81, but I would like to ask whether the Minister could not answer the other points which the last speaker made. There is no preparatory period of supervision of the management. There is no appeal to a tribunal. There is nothing whatever except the bare statement that if the Minister is of the opinion that this land ought to be purchased, it will be purchased compulsorily. That, I think, is a great weakness and one which may make it difficult for the Minister really to apply the paragraphs in many cases. Am I right in thinking that there are no safeguards?

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: As I see it, the whole of this Clause and of the paragraphs we seek to delete really turn on the word "reasonable." When some of us earlier in the day moved an Amendment which included the word "reasonable", it was turned down by the Solicitor-General on the ground that it was quite impossible for a layman to decide what was reasonable or was unreasonable. When it comes to a Minister's taking a decision, we are always to leave it in his hands to say what is reasonable. I rather agree with the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) that there are parts of the country where no one would object to the Minister's acquiring land to carry out some large scale reclamation of land that is derelict and not used at the moment. But I feel strongly that there ought to be some appeal against these compulsory purchases and decisions by the Minister that fixed equipment cannot reasonably be provided by landlords.

This Clause is extremely wide, and, as some of my hon. Friends have already said, it really undermines a great deal of what we have been at pains to do in Part II, of the Bill.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite (Holderness): The Paymaster-General made it clear that he was going to be deaf to all arguments that might be put forward from this side, and that this Amendment was to be firmly rejected. None the less, I think that this short discussion has been of some value in clarifying the situation. It has revealed, of course, the wide gulf that exists between the two sides of the House on this matter. That is, of course, a useful thing to do. I hope it will prove useful to some of the farming community who expressed such enthusiasm for the Measure when it was first printed. I remember one Gentleman—I am sorry to say, in Yorkshire—who described this Bill as the "Farmer's Bible."

Mr. T. Williams: A very wise man.

Lieut.-Commander, Braithwaite: I expressed the hope at the time that he had studied Holy Writ with greater care than he had studied this Bill. Now that we have reached this stage of it, as I predicted then, many protests are coming from the farming community, particularly in my constituency, and from those who have not studied this Measure as closely as some of us have had to do. I want to emphasise what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin). Here is a Clause which skilfully circumnavigates the whole of Part II, so carefully considered before; and it would be quite possible here—by the back door, as my hon. Friend said—to carry out the nationalisation of the land. At that point in my hon. Friend's speech the hon. Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass), whose enthusiasm for that project is well known, cheered—to some extent embarrassing the Paymaster-General, who was carefully building up a soothing announcement that everything reasonable was to be done in this matter. I think that, to that extent, the discussion has been valuable. I am not quite clear where the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) eventually ended his tight-rope performance, expressing equal approval and disapproval, that being the function of the Liberal Party. But I hope that, whatever happens in the Lobby, when the big battalions come to vote us


down, the farming community, who thought this Bill was a Bible, now realise that this volume is of a very different character, and that for "Bible" must be substituted Dante's "Inferno."

10.45 p.m.

Mr. J. H. Hare: There is one point on which I should like to detain the House for a moment, and that is on what the Paymaster-General said about the disposing of odd sections of land separated by the town and country planning schemes for new roads and measures of that sort. That, I think, is welcomed by my hon. Friends on this side of the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) gave it a particular commendation. I think that in this Bill there is a contradiction of what the Paymaster-General said. Under Sub-section (2) the Minister may acquire extra land in order to fit in with those odd bits of land which he has had to acquire because of these new town planning schemes. That raises a most important matter. It invites the Minister to start speculating in land in order to make an economic unit. He is then encouraged to buy another piece of land, and that would be, in my opinion, entirely contrary to what the Paymaster-General has just said. I would be grateful if we can hear from the Minister of Agriculture something in confirmation of what the Paymaster said—that it is the intention of the Minister not to try to extend those odd pieces of land by buying other pieces of land to make it an economic unit, but try to dispose of it to private individuals who could deal with it far more economically than the Minister.

Captain Crookshank: The Minister may have gathered that we are not very enthusiastic about this Clause. We realise that the Paymaster-General is new to agriculture. He is more enthusiastic than the Minster himself would have been. I am certain that the Minister himself would

not have said all that his colleague has said about this—if he did not know so much about the back history of this, about the debates upstairs, about safeguards in relation to this Bill, which, as the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) said, are so conspicuously absent from this Clause. I do not understand how the Minister, in view of all the past history and his general attitude, in which we have supported him so largely in these matters, should have allowed this Clause to get in, without any kind of appeal or safeguard, without anything at all, except the Minister's own view that it is not likely that this equipment, which is required, will be provided. I suppose it will be on the advice of somebody, not necessarily the county committee—but it does not say so. Is it just to be said an area, say Romney Marsh, "Well, we do not think, on the whole, that there is anybody wealthy enough, anybody enthusiastic enough to develop agriculture, to put themselves out to this extent"? Is that the test? There is no indication what is to be the test, except the Minister's satisfaction that it cannot reasonably be expected to be provided, and so on. The case has been put so well by my hon. Friends that I do not want to labour it further, but I should like to vote against the Clause. We cannot do that tonight; I do not think that we want to trouble the House with over many Divisions. We put down the Amendment to raise the matter on paras. (a), (b) and (c), and perhaps it would suffice if we took a Division on paragraph (a) as a token vote against this Clause, and let (b) and (c) go, not because we approve of them, but because we have more to do. By doing this, we shall have registered our protest.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 202; Noes, 75.

Division 240.]
AYES.
[10.51 p.m.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Bowden. Fig.-Offr. H. W.
Collindridge, F.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Collins, V. J.


Alpass, J. H.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Colman, Miss G. M.


Anderson, F (Whitehaven)
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Comyns, Dr. L


Attewell, H. C.
Brook, D. (Halifax)
Cook, T. F.


Austin, H. Lewis
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Corbet, Mrs F. K (Camb'well, N. W.)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs B.
Buchanan, G.
Corlett, Dr, J.


Baird, J.
Burke, W. A.
Davies, Clement (Montgomery)


Barton, C
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)


Bechervaise, A. E
Byers, Frank
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Beswick, F.
Cobb, F. A.
Delargy, H J.


Boardman, H,
Cocks, F. S.
Diamond, J.




Dodds, N. N.
McGhee, H. G
Silverman, J (Erdington)


Driberg, T. E. N.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Simmons, C. J


Dumpleton. C. W.
Mackay, R. W G (Hull, N.W.)
Skinnard, F. W


Ede, Rt. Han J. C
McLeavy, F
Smith. Ellis (Stoke)


Edelman, M.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Smith, S. H (Hull, S.W)


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Snow, Capt J W


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Marquand, H. A.
Sorensen, R. W.


Fairhurst, F.
Mathers, G.
Soskice, Maj. Sir P


Farthing, W. J.
Mellish, R. J
Sparks, J. A


Fernyhough, E.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Stamford, W


Fletcher, E. G. M (Islington, E.)
Mikardo, Ian
Steele, T.


Foot, M. M.
Mitchison, G. R.
Swingler, S.


Fraser, T (Hamilton)
Moody, A. S.
Symonds, A. L


Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Ganley, Mrs. C. S
Morley, R
Taylor, R J. (Morpeth)


Gooch, E G.
Morris, P (Swansea, W)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Goodrich. H. E.
Nally, W
Thomas, D E. (Aberdare)


Greenwood, A W J (Heywood)
Neal, H (Claycross)
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Grierson, E
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Griffiths, D (Rather Valley)
Nicholls, H R. (Stratford)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Griffiths, W. D (Moss Side)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P J. (Derby)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Gunter, R. J
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Thurtle, Ernest


Guy, W. H
Oliver, G H
Titterington, M. F.


Hale, Leslie
Paget, R. T
Tolley, L


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R
Paling, Will T (Dewsbury)
Turner-Samuels, M


Hannan, W (Marvhill)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Hardy, E. A.
Pargiter, G. A.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Harbison, Miss M.
Parker, J.
Viant, S. P.


Hewitson, Captain M
Parkin, B. T
Wadsworth, G


Hobson, C R.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Holman, P.
Pearson, A
Webb, M (Bradford, C.)


Holmes, H. E (Hemsworth)
Peart, Mr. T. P.
Welts, P L. (Faversham)


House, G
Piratin, P.
Wells, W T. (Walsall)


Hoy, J
Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)
While, H (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Hudson, J. H, (Ealing, W.)
Popplewell, E
Whiteley, Rt Hon W


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Wigg, Col. G. E


Hynd, H (Hacknev G.)
Price, M. Philips
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A B


Irving, W. J
Proctor, W T.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Janner, B
Pursey. Cmdr. H
Williams, D J. (Neath)


Jay, D. P T
Ranger, J
Williams, J L. (Kelvingrove)


Jeger, G (Winchester)
Rees-Williams, D. R
Williams, Rt Hon T. (Don Valley)


Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Reid, T (Swindon)
Williams, W. R (Heston)


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Robens, A.
Willis, E


Keenan, W
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Wills, Mrs. E A.


Kenyon, C.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Wise, Major F J


Kinghorn, Sqn -Ldr E
Robertson, J J. (Berwick)
Woods, G. S


Kinley, J
Rogers, G. H. R.
Wyatt, W


Kirby, B. V
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Yates, V F


Lee F (Hulme)
Royle, C.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Lee, Miss J (Cannock)
Sargood, R.
Younger, Hon Kenneth


Lewis, A W J. (Upton)
Segal, Dr. S.
Zilliacus, K


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Shackleton, E. A. A



Lipton, Lt -Col M
Sharp, Granville
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Longden, F
Shawcross, C. N (Widnes)
Mr. Joseph Henderson and


Lyne, A W
Shawcross, Rt. Hn Sir H. (St. Helens)
Mr. Michael Stewart.


McAdam, W
Shurmer, P.





NOES


Baldwin, A E
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Neven-Spence, Sir B


Barlow, Sir J
Fraser, H. C P (Stone)
Nicholson, G.


Beamish, Maj. T V H
Fyfe, Rt. Hon Sir D. P M
Orr-Ewing, I L


Birch, Nigel
Gage, C.
Osborne, C.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C (Wells)
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Peto, Brig C. H. M


Bossom, A. C.
Hare, Hon J. H. (Woodbridge)
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Bower, N.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon Sir C
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Raikes, H. V.


Braithwaite Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Hope, Lord J.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col W
Howard, Hon A.
Ropner, Col. L


Buchan-Hepburn, P G T
Hurd, A
Sanderson, Sir F.


Carson, E
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Challen, C
Jeffreys, General Sir G
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O


Channon, H
Joynson Hicks, Hon. L. W
Stoddart-Scott, Col M


Clarke, Col R. S.
Lambert, Hon G.
Studholme, H. G.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E
MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Vane. W. M F


Cooper-Key, E M.
Mackeson, Brig H. R.
Ward, Hon G. R


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Macpherson, N (Dumfries)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Crowder, Capt, John E.
Marlowe, A A. H.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Dodds-Parker, A D
Maude, J. C
York, C.


Drayson, G B
Molson, A. H. E.



Drewe, C
Morrison, Maj. J. G (Salisbury)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Dugdale, Maj Sir T (Richmond)
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C E
Major Ramsay and




Lieut.-Colonel Thorp.


Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 92.—(Special directions to secure production.)

11.0 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 75, line 31, to leave out Clause 92.
This Clause is one to which we have taken grave exception at every stage, and the right hon. Gentleman will therefore not in the least be surprised to see that on this final occasion we will once more try to get it deleted from the Bill. We find it very difficult to understand, in spite of the explanation given to us, why it appears in the Bill at all, because the underlying assumption here is that there will be some national emergency, and that it will be necessary, subject to affirmative Resolution by Parliament, to take specific action to secure production by giving special directions as set out in Subsection (2), paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). What we have never been able to realise is the nature of this national emergency which the right hon. Gentleman has in view. If it is to be the sort of emergency which is a polite euphemism for war, obviously it will be necessary for the House to give to the Government of the day, at that time, very large powers, not only with regard to the direction of production in agriculture but, as we all know from our own. experience, over the whole field of national activity. If that is what he has in mind, then we say that this Clause has no place in this Bill, because whatever regulations or Emergency Powers Acts are passed, whatever they would be called—because they are given different names in, different wars—this sort of power would be sought, and would naturally be included in the regulations. It may be that this is not entirely what the Minister has in view. It may he, in the first few words of the Clause—
Where it appears to the Minister necessary so to do in the interest of the national supply of food or other agricultural products.
that circumstances of that kind may conceivably occur having nothing to do with a national emergency in the sense of war or the approach of war. It may arise through a national disaster, such as we have suffered from the floods or frosts.

Mrs. Manning: Or a world disaster.

Captain Crookshank: Yes, it may be a world disaster. But that is a very different matter from a war. That is why we want

to find the stopping place of this proposal. The Amendments which the right hon. Gentleman is to move to this Clause are directed to the very point that it has nothing to do with the coming of war, or an emergency in that sense, but that it is because of certain anxieties with regard to food production in the near future that he wants to take these powers of special direction. That is something which we do not think should be contained in this Bill. I know very well that an order can have no effect unless it is approved by Resolution of each House; but in spite of that, if there are going to be such emergencies that there is a risk of war, or a great international crisis, or some emergency so serious that you have to take special steps to deal with agricultural production in the interests of food supplies, then they should be dealt with ad hoc, and should not be considered part of an agricultural Measure which deals with quite different matters.
That is something extraneous to the whole line of the Bill, as those who have studied it for so long know. The right hon. Gentleman may say it is necessary, or that as we are dealing with agriculture it is convenient, to put these powers in. But it is on that that we join issue, and say that the powers necessary to deal with these emergencies should not come into this Bill which deals with markets, and landlord and tenant, and all those various other complicated matters that we have discussed. For that reason we do not think that the Clause should be here and that is why I move that it should be left out.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I wish to press this question upon the Government. This Clause is utterly illogical in this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has so impressed upon us that we have come to believe him that this Bill is designed to increase the confidence of the farming community and to foster and to improve the stability of the industry. To introduce into a Bill, which is designed for that purpose, a Clause providing for general directions by the Minister to over-ride, and over-rule everything connected with the production side of the industry in the guise of a national emergency is to make absolute nonsense of the whole purport of the Bill.
I can remember the right hon. Gentleman saying on Second Reading how he was building up the farming industry


upon the twin pillars of stability—fixed prices and assured markets—and in that way he was creating stable conditions for the industry. With Clause 92 we suddenly find that the whole of that is swept away. The right hon. Gentleman presupposes a national emergency. But what type is not clear either in the Bill or from his remarks. As my right hon. and gallant Friend has said, whether it is an emergency caused by the weather or the policy of the Government's bulk purchase system, or the failure of the Government's nationalised transport system so that we cannot import food from overseas, or whether it is a failure from any other cause, even possibly a war or a comparatively minor activity of the Government which might equally raise a national disaster such as the Town and Country Planning Bill—whatever the cause the Government take power to remove from all farmers in the country the discretion to run their own industry, the discretion to produce their own crops and over-ride the whole thing. It is neither logic nor commonsense. The Minister takes the powers for a year only. What good is that going to be? It is not a thing he can do in a moment of time because it requires an affirmative Resolution. If there is this emergency making it necessary for these powers to be taken, surely it is time the Government explained the situation, explained the powers and how they will operate, then do it by means of an emergency Measure rather than do it in an order introduced under this Clause which destroys all the confidence of the community and the purpose of the Bill.

Mrs. Manning: How long before the last war did we know that there was going to be a war with Germany and how long before we appointed—

Mr. Deputy - Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): That is outside the scope of the Bill. Even if the questions were asked, I could not permit the hon. Member to answer them.

Mr. Hurd: I want to support my right hon. and gallant Friend on this point. This is a Measure for the permanent governing of agriculture. The Minister is seeking to give himself powers for ever to direct cropping. That is a drastic power which was used during the war and was then very necessary. But in

more normal times, the balance of agriculture, the proportion of tillage and grass, should be determined by the economic forces which make the farmer decide whether he is going to plough so much, and whether he is going to concentrate on milk or growing vegetables. He should not in normal times be dictated to as to how he is to crop his land. That gets you back to farming from Whitehall under direction. It does not result in good crops. We know the difficulties of growing potatoes and wheat on unsuitable land. The Minister is here taking powers to continue that kind of direction, and to tell farmers they must go against their own judgment and fulfil a general cropping direction which the Minister is giving.
We on this side say the Minister should be able to get the right balance in production through the use of Part I of this Bill in which he has full power to fix prices and quantities. This is the right way rather than by taking powers to give general cropping directions which result, I suggest, in inefficient production. The land may not be suitable for a particular crop and it may involve large sections of the farming community in serious loss. Last year and the year before, many people working under general directions to grow potatoes did incur loss. The Minister here is seeking to continue that power. We do not feel it is right in this Bill, which is to be a permanent Measure for the betterment and stability of agriculture, that this should be included.

Mr. Marquand: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman rightly said that it had been claimed that this Bill had gained the confidence of the agricultural industry. I want to begin in the few words I shall address to the House by assuring him and my hon. Friends that since this Bill has been published it has been fully discussed with the representatives of the agricultural industry. This Clause in particular has been discussed with the National Farmers' Union, the Central Landowners' Association and the Agricultural Workers' Unions, and they have all expressed agreement with it. I want to assure the House that besides the confidence of the agricultural industry we have also acquired the confidence of the rest of the nation. The rest of the nation has an interest in this Clause. They want to be assured that if an emergency occurs again, the sort of action necessary, to produce additional food sup-


plies for this country, when they cannot be imported, will be taken.
My right hon. Friend is quite clear in his mind that this must only be used when a grave emergency threatens, but by an emergency we do not only mean war. We might have to take these powers at a time when there was a world shortage of certain types of grains, as there is at the moment. It is not now so acute that these powers have to be invoked, but that extreme shortage might occur again. Surely the experiences of the last two great wars show that it is unwise to wait until an emergency comes upon us, especially in the case of agriculture. Cropping plans take a long time to mature, and if such plans are not made in advance we are likely to be caught napping, and defeated in a war, or starved in some emergency which may come from outside this country altogether. Therefore it is necessary to take this power.
11.15 p.m.
The Minister requires the power which is in the Bill. It is not sufficient to say that we must wait until an emergency arises and then use the Emergency Powers Act or the Defence Regulations, or whatever may he put into force when a war starts. It is necessary to use this power before an emergency comes upon us, because the next sowing must take place before the next harvest is reached. We admit that the powers taken are drastic, but in defence of them, having said that we intend to use these powers only in cases of grave emergency, we defend them further by pointing out, as has been pointed out already, that there is ample safeguard in the fact that the powers cannot be enforced until the House has passed an affirmative Resolution.

Mr. W. Roberts: I would like to ask for your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, on whether it would be out of Order to make a general reference to the Amendment which the Minister proposes to make to this Clause in speaking on the Clause itself. I think it would save time if that were possible.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes: that will be in Order.

Mr. Roberts: I am surprised that the Minister has found it desirable since the Bill was drafted, and since the Committee stage, to ask for the extra power which

appears in the new paragraph (d) which he is to propose. The power in the paragraph (a), seems to be so wide that I wonder whether he will explain why he specially wants to take this power, which is a lesser power than the power which he has already. I do not understand it, and it raises in my mind the possibility that he wants to make use of the new paragraph which he is to move at, perhaps, some not too distant date. We would like to have an assurance now that he is not contemplating using this new power in the near future. It occurs to me that we may be faced with a dollar crisis, and I would like to ask the Minister whether that has anything to do with this new provision—whether it is his intention to make use of this power in the next year, say. Do I understand from the Minister that he does not mean to use this power?

Mr. T. Williams: If the hon. Member will wait a few moments I will try and explain why I think I need the power embodied in my Amendment.

Mr. Roberts: That is very interesting, for I rather feared that the right hon. Gentleman did intend to use this power in the near future.

Mr. T. Williams: Oh, no.

Mr. Roberts: We have got the power now, it is true. We have got it in the Supplies and Services Act, which empowers the Government to make regulations up to 1950, with, I understand, power to extend them for another year. The Government have that power now, and are using it now. It is not popular with farmers, but they recognise that it is a hangover from the war and due to the economic circumstances in which we are living. Farmers will think it is a great mistake to introduce this emergency Clause, with increased powers, at this time into a Bill which is a permanent charter for agriculture, not for the next two or three years, but, we hope, for the next 10 or 20 years. It is very bad psychology on the part of the Government. The Bill, as has been said, begins with price guarantees for the majority of farm products and then we come here, towards the end of the Bill, to a Clause which empowers the Minister to do all the things which have been most unpopular during the war and which farmers in many parts of this country still strongly resent. There are one or two things


which may happen in the immediate future. One is that the American loan will run down. Another is that German prisoners of war are returning to Germany at a time when we need more food and when we have a shortage of labour. I believe the `way to solve the shortage of labour is to build more houses and to provide more machinery. I think I am not out of Order in dealing with that, for I am submitting that if farmers are to grow more crops, and not lay their land down to grass—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have not suggested that the hon. Member is out of Order, but he seems to have an uneasy conscience.

Mr. Roberts: What I was just saying is that if farmers are anxious to cease growing crops and to lay land down to grass, it will be because of the shortage of labour. This can only be cured by increased output and an increase of the machinery available. The right way to prevent them laying land down to grass is not to take powers in a permanent Bill to compel them, even if those powers have got to be reviewed annually, but to deal with the fundamental causes why they want to cease growing crops. It is a great pity that at the end of this Bill this should appear when the Government already have powers in other legislation, and when the agricultural community is, in my opinion, looking forward to the security which this Bill will give them. The Minister says he proposes actually to use this Clause in the near future. That act itself will undermine what is so necessary for continued and increasing production—the confidence of farmers in this Bill. Therefore, I very much regret the suggestion that these powers are to be used.

Mr. Lambert: I support this Amendment for the reason so ably put by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Hurd). There can be no question that the farmer is the best judge of what to grow on his land. In my view, the Minister has adequate power in Part I of the Bill to stimulate the production of a particular crop. Again, I am opposed to the Clause because it is a retrograde step. My predecessor in the representation of my constituency more than 50 years ago established the principle that a farmer should be able to grow what he liked,

provided he maintained the fertility of the soil. I cannot but think it is wrong now for the Government to take away the right from the farmer to decide how he is to farm his own land.

Mr. Baldwin: I rise primarily because it is so seldom that I agree with the agricultural ideas of my hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert). I want to support him in this case. If we want production we must give a price incentive, and make it worth while for the farmer to produce. If the Government had realised we were short of wheat in 1945—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member must realise we cannot go back to that.

Mr. Baldwin: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I still can refer to the fact that price incentive is the way to get crops. I should like to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for South Molton said about his predecessor, who was one of the soundest agricultural Members this House has ever had. That was his theory —that the farmer should be paid a worthwhile price for his crops and that then he would produce them. That is worth more than all the orders in the world.

Mr. Byers: I think we might, at least, have a reply from the Minister on this point. Perhaps, I may lead the Minister to it. I do feel that this is a most important principle, and I do not like the look of complacency there is on the Minister's face at the present moment. He seems to think that it really does not matter at all. I think it does. After all, he is seeking to introduce into permanent legislation the idea that a Minister should have compulsory power to order what crops are to be grown at any time. I am perfectly willing to admit that in times of emergency, and to carry on a war, it may be absolutely vital to have the powers the Government have in the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act. That is very reasonable. But I do think that if we put into permanent legislation this power and the power contained, in the proposed Amendment, it will undermine the confidence of the farmers and, as a result, may depress conditions in the farming industry, which may affect the agricultural workers, too. I think that that is bound to happen.
After all, what is this? It is an easy way out for the Minister. It is the old


story of delegated legislation. That is what it is. It is the old story of conscription, against the voluntary system. Here the Minister is covered, and given a way out, if he does not want to pay the price. I am not blaming the Minister. This is a Treasury decision. I believe that the Treasury have given a direct cropping order to the Minister of Agriculture—that a saving Clause has got to be in this Bill because they may not, at certain times be prepared to pay the price—just as they were not prepared to pay the price for a volunteer force. It is the old game of Treasury control. If the farming community of this country believed that, then I say—and I believe it to be true, because if it is not true, why is it in the Bill?—I say that confidence is going to be very seriously undermined in the farming industry. I should like a definite assurance from the Minister that it is not his intention to have an easy get-out, because he is not prepared to pay the price.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I do not know whether I have to reply to the Amendment to delete Clause 92 or to move my Amendment. The hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) spoke throughout about the Amendment which had not been moved and paid little or no attention to the Amendment that had been moved. It seems to me that as a result of this Debate there is still hope of a design for freedom. The hopes of the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) are not completely lost. Greater unity is coming hour by hour as the night goes on.

Mr. Byers: Coming our way.

Mr. Williams: I presume that I must first direct my few observations to Clause 92. While the hon. Member who has just spoken talked about losing the confidence of the farming community, my hon. Friend the Paymaster-General told the House with great truth that the National Farmers' Union are in favour of Clause 92. There is no price "dodgeability" about it, and were there any such, it would be following the very bad example we witnessed in the prewar years when there was no sort of confidence, guaranteed market or prices, or indeed anything else. During the past seven years—

Mr. Baldwin: 1929 to 1931?

Mr. Williams: Yes, because the Conservative Party were always in the majority. In 1929–31 the Conservative Party with their comrades of the Liberal benches were in the majority. In any case I do not propose to discuss that now. We are living in 1947 where there is more security for the farming community than there has been for 50 years.
We have had the power for seven years to give individual cropping directions to every farmer and almost on every field, but when this Bill was introduced it was promised that individual cropping directions would cease once this Bill became law. I repeat that individual cropping directions will cease once this Bill becomes law. But there may conceivably be an emergency; and who am I to say what kind of emergency it might be? As my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) said earlier, county executive committee chairmen were chosen before war broke out in an anticipation of the war that did breakout. [An HON. MEMBER: "Good planning."] For the first time in the life of the Tory Party. We supported it. We thought it an exercise of wisdom should such an emergency arise. As for Subsection (1) of Clause 92, it is right that, whoever may be the Government or Minister, they should be able to proceed to the House of Commons to get an affirmative Resolution to provide themselves with power to make the best use of our national resources. Therefore, as we are allowing individual cropping directions to cease, it is fair under this Bill that provision should be taken so that on a future occasion, where an emergency arises, the power will be in the hands of the Government, following an affirmative Resolution, to proceed to do what the then Government deem best. I think there can be no objection to any Government taking the power they need in the circumstances visualised in Subsection (1). I am sure that hon. Members opposite, as well as I and my colleagues on these benches. are all anxious that this emergency shall not arise, but I hope that, since all the farming interests are agreed with Clause 92, the House will accept it.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, in page 75, line 33, after "that" to insert "all or any of."
This, and the following three Amendments, I suggest, might conveniently be linked together. The purpose of the Amendments is to enable control to be exercised over the proportion of agricultural land under tillage crops, and to ensure that land is not laid down to grass too quickly and before there is adequate stock to consume the increased quantities of grass. The House will recall that on 6th March, in my statement about future production programmes, it was made clear that British agriculture must make its biggest contribution, but that it was not the Government intention to secure the targets for particular crops by the issue of special directions unless emergency conditions arose such as those contemplated under Clause 92 (1). I said that the need for the highest level of self-sufficiency in feeding-stuffs called for a higher acreage of tillage—a greater acreage than in pre-war years—and that the Government would deprecate a decrease in the next four years below a point half-way between the war- I time peak and the pre-war tillage. The peak tillage year was 1944, when we I reached 14½ million acres, compared with the average of the last three pre-war years, when it was about 9 million acres. The Government fear that the tendency to decrease which has taken place since 1944 may go too far and too fast, when we need to make the best use of our agricultural resources. We should not make the best use of them if we allowed that to continue. We cannot expect an unlimited supply of feedingstuffs to be at our disposal at least for a few years, and our claim for supplies available from elsewhere cannot be good unless we can show that we are doing our best at home. We must preserve a proper balance, therefore, between crops and grass while allowing farmers complete freedom to decide what particular crops they can best grow in accordance with the economics of their particular farms. As has been pointed out, the Government can operate under the Defence Regulations up to 1950, but there are obvious objections to using the provisions of this Bill at the same time as using the Defence Regulations.
The first Amendment enables the Minister to make an order as set out in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of Subsection (2), and also for the additional purpose of controlling tillage specified in the new paragraph (d) to that Subsection,

which it is now desired to add to the Bill. It will still be necessary to secure specific authority from both Houses of Parliament by affirmative Resolution to control tillage acreage. The second Amendment to add certain words at the end of line 36 will enable any order, made under the new provision to be inserted in Subsection (2) of the Clause giving power to serve directions for control of tillage and grass, to operate to the end of 1950, in the first instance. This coincides with the period during which the Defence Regulations can continue, so we are not seeking more power than we possess at the moment. Instead, however, of cancelling this power in the Bill and then operating it by an apparently backdoor use of emergency regulations which would subject us to the charge of dodging the column, I think it far better that the House should agree to these Amendments so that emergency regulations can fall the moment an affirmative Resolution is passed through both Houses of Parliament. It is, therefore, my intention to seek the approval of the House to make an order later this year, after the appointed day has been settled and announced. In the meantime, of course, we shall continue to rely on the Regulations. After 1950, should we desire to continue control of tillage acreage, we shall have to seek the authority of Parliament year by year.
The third Amendment is really the operative part of this series of Amendments. Under this paragraph, an order is made and a county agricultural executive committee can serve appropriate directions where they think a farmer is reducing tillage acreage too quickly. Every county will be given a tillage target, and in most cases I am convinced they will get their target without directions being served. Where served, they will be served by practical agriculturists, men who can be relied upon to act reasonably. As these Amendments are necessary in the national interest, I hope the House will be disposed to accept them. The Amendments, which seem rather complicated, are quite simple. We are forfeiting the right to give cropping directions to any farmers. We are merely retaining the right to control tillage acreage, but we do so by means of this Bill instead of by continuing the wartime emergency regulations. I feel that most hon. Members would desire that that should be done.

Sir T. Dugdale: The Minister of Agriculture has made an important statement to the House. I think that, on behalf of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, I can say that if the point is made clear we can agree with his proposals. As we see them, they are simply that, after this Bill becomes an Act, the Minister will draft an order which will come before Parliament in order that he may control the tillage acreage growing in this country up to 1950, instead of using the powers he possesses at present under the Emergency Powers Act; and after 1950 the Emergency Powers Act will cease, as also will the operation of this Clause, unless the Minister returns again to this House and seeks additional powers in order to make definite regulations. I think this will commend itself to the House, and that hon. Members will agree with the Minister in these Amendments.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. W. Roberts: I am very much obliged to the Minister for answering my questions so fully, in a statement which was very interesting indeed. It seemed to me to contain several points, and, summarising them very briefly, I agree with the Minister in the desirability of maintaining the tillage acreage. A large part of what he said was devoted to that. The question at issue is how to maintain the tillage acreage, whether by direction, or by some other inducement. I am not satisfied that other Government Departments have assisted the Minister sufficiently in this business of producing food. I am not satisfied that the Minister responsible for housing has done so, and I think many members of his party are not satisfied either; and I am not satisfied that the President of the Board of Trade has helped sufficiently in regard to machinery. At this hour we cannot go fully into that. The time will come, when the Minister lays the Order, when we can go fully into the question whether.it is the right way, or not, to continue to maintain the tillage acreage by regulation rather than by price inducement or other means.
I cannot agree with the Minister that it is better that he should use permanent emergency powers under this Bill than continue to use the emergency powers under the temporary Act. Apparently the way to get rid of temporary emergency powers is to make them permanent by putting them into a permanent Act of Par-

liament, and that seems to me an Alice-in-Wonderland way of dealing with temporary powers. They are limited only by the fact that they are subject to affirmative Resolution each year, which, with a large majority, any Government can get through. I think it is disastrous to British agriculture that it should be permanently subjected to the emergency powers that we had during the war, and I make my protest about that. It is most unfortunate, and the Minister has made a decision which I very much regret, because I, for one, wish this Measure the greatest success. It is a very valuable Measure, and it is a credit to him and to his party that he has carried it through. I think it is a great mistake that he has incorporated these powers, used during the war, into a permanent Measure, and is going to use them right away.

Mr. Baldwin: Again I have the unusual job of supporting the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts). I agree with his suggestion that the way to keep up the tillage acreage of this country is to make it worth while. I would like the Minister to explain whether, if there is not to be any compulsory cropping after this Bill becomes an Act, there will be any compulsory acquisition of the crop after it is grown. The Minister said there has been an enormous drop in the tillage acreage during the last two years.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 75, line 36, at end, insert:
or in the case of an order made before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and fifty, and confined to the powers conferred by paragraph (d) of the next following subsection, for the period ending with the thirty-first day of December in that year.

In page 76, line 7, at end, insert:
(d) without prejudice to the general powers conferred by the foregoing paragraphs, as to the maximum area of land which may be maintained on an agricultural unit under pasture laid down with clover, grass, lucerne, sainfoin or other seeds or under herbage crops grown for commercial seed production.

In line 26, at end, insert:
so long as the act or omission was reasonably necessary in consequence of the giving of the direction."—[Mr. T. Williams.]

CLAUSE 95.—(Prevention of damage by pests.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 78, line 44, to leave out "may," and' to insert "shall not."
This Amendment, together with the succeeding two Amendments, which, it you will allow me Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I would like to explain at the same time, are designed to meet arguments advanced by hon. Gentlemen opposite and by my hon. Friends during the Committee stage with regard to Clause 95, which deals with pests and weed control. Objection was taken to Subsection (2) on the grounds that it appeared to go too far in providing for the destruction of pests, where the destruction, apart from the authority of the Subsection would be unlawful. During the Committee stage, I indicated two major purposes which the Minister had in mind, namely, to be allowed to destroy game during the close season and to make use of poison in destroying foxes. The next two Amendments embody these two objects and remove the vice objected to in Subsection (2) as it stood; namely, it takes away the power to destroy pests generally where that would otherwise be unlawful, and limits the Minister's power to destroying game in the close season, and also to using poisons, subject to the precautions necessary to comply with Section 8 of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911. It does, therefore, limit the Minister's powers to the two objects I have indicated.

Mr. Alpass: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I respectfully submit that the three Amendments seem to be dealing with the same point of the control of pests and the methods of destroying them. Would you give us a Ruling that these might be discussed together?

Mr. Speaker: I think the Solicitor-General did say that he was going to discuss the three Amendments together.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I recollect that during the Committee stage the question was posed to the Solicitor-General whether or not bird lime would he permissible under this Clause for catching birds, and I have a clear recollection that the question seemed to catch the Solicitor-General to a considerable degree. While I recognise that what he has said is, to a considerable extent, satisfactory, I suggest that the words of these Amendments are not in the least degree satisfactory.
I invite the House to consider the wording of the first Amendment to line 44, to insert "shall not" instead of "may."

We have no objection to that, but when we come to line 45, the Amendment to leave out "notwithstanding that apart from this section" and to insert "if apart from this subsection," so that Subsection (2) would read:
A requirement may be imposed under the last foregoing subsection if apart from this subsection, the killing, taking or destruction in question would be prohibited by law.
The first point I put to the Solicitor-General is this: Subsection (1) and other parts of the Clause give no right to infringe the general law with regard to animals and birds. Therefore, I suggest that the words "if apart from this subsection" are entirely unnecessary. That is the first, and, perhaps, a minor point of drafting, to which I draw the Solicitor-General's attention.
I come to the proviso in line 47. I understand the first three lines deal with the destruction of game during the close season. I am a little intrigued to know why the Government at this 'time require power to destroy game within the meaning of the Game Act, 1831, during the close season. I should like to have an explanation of that. Then one looks at the Amendment and sees
for the purposes of the last foregoing subsection a person shall not be deemed not to have the right to comply with a requirement falling within this proviso by reason only that apart from this proviso compliance therewith would be prohibited.
I am not in the least confident as to the meaning of the expression
a person shall not be deemed not to have the right to comply with a requirement.
Surely, the failure to comply with a requirement would be an offence. Surely, the drafting of that particular part of this proviso is wrong. The obligation under Subsection (1) is to comply with the requirement and the drafting of the last part of the Subsection seems to me not only to be confusing, but to be entirely inaccurate and entirely wrong, and I would like to have a reply to that point. When one comes to Subsection (3), apparently it contemplates that poison can be used for destroying rabbits, deer, foxes, moles and birds to which this provision applies. I would like to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman what plans are in mind for the use of poison in connection with the destruction of birds.

The Solicitor-General: It does not apply to birds.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. and learned Gentleman says it does not apply to birds. If one looks at Subsection (3), one sees that clearly it does. One sees from it that:
poison for destroying rats, mice or other small vermin so long as reasonable precautions are taken to prevent injury to domestic animals and wild birds) for the words 'rats, mice' there shall be substituted the words 'animals other than deer or hares, to which section ninety-five of the Agriculture' Act, 1947, applies.
Section 95 of the Agriculture Act, 1947, applies to rabbits, hares and other rodents, deer foxes and moles and the birds to which the Section applies. If the hon. and learned Gentleman likes to say that birds are not animals, he is entitled to express that view, but I suggest it is not clear in the drafting. So far as the drafting of this Clause is concerned, I suggest to him that it really does not correspond with the words he uttered in moving the Amendment.

12 m.

Mr. Alpass: This question aroused very great feeling and interest in the Committee. Very strong feeling was expressed on all sides of the Committee and I believe it was a reflection of what was pretty general throughout the country, that the use of steel-toothed traps should not be permitted for dealing with rabbits. I thought that the Minister, bowing to that general feeling, went a considerable way to meet those of us who advanced the case against it; but we are not quite satisfied with the present position. We feel very strongly that the use of these spring steel-tooth traps should be prohibited in every way, because they not only inflict cruelty if used above ground, but they subject those animals which are caught in their holes to the same torture. I appeal to the Minister to take some steps before the Bill becomes law to assure us that the use of these spring steel-tooth traps shall be prohibited absolutely for destroying rabbits.

Mr. Speaker: I am not sure that this is in Order. In the Amendment which we are discussing, I see nothing about spring steel-tooth traps.

Mr. Alpass: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I would say that the wording will allow the use of these traps if the original wording had remained. That would have allowed the use of these traps for which power was given in a previous Act.

Mr. Speaker: Previous Acts have nothing to do with this matter. This is a separate Act, and the matter to which the hon. Member was referring is not included in this Amendment.

Colonel Clarke: I am not certain about the wisdom of some of the provisions of Subsection (3) of this Amendment. It has already been pointed out that this Amendment is really an Amendment of Section 8 of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, allowing the use of poison and other matter to be set on the ground for destroying small vermin, provided that all reasonable precautions are taken to prevent access thereto of domestic animals. What is allowed here is a very much wider distribution of that poison, and I want to know what steps the Government think can be taken to exercise all reasonable precautions to prevent access to it of dogs, cats, fowls and other domestic animals. That will be a very difficult matter.
I am glad that we have the Home Secretary here, because a short time ago he took part in a Debate when the subject was the preservation of wild life. A great many other animals than those which it is intended to destroy may be involved, because when poisoned animals die they are eaten by other animals. Quite a number of wild animals are eaters of carrion, some at all times, others only when they are growing old and their teeth are going, and they cannot themselves catch live things. I believe that very wide destruction of animals may ensue. Not only wild animals may be destroyed but dogs, for it is well known that dogs like to eat carrion if they get the chance. We may he, as it were, throwing a stone into a pond the ripples of which may extend very much further than was the original intention of the Bill. Therefore, I feel that these provisions should be very carefully vetted before the Bill becomes law.
I know that, although hares are excluded, rabbits are included, and I wonder whether this may not be related to the defeat of the Government upstairs on the steel traps, and whether it is not an alternative to the steel trap for rabbits. I feel that, perhaps, the Minister is being a bit of a fox himself over this and is pulling a fast one over those who defeated the Government upstairs. I was not on that Committee, so I cannot go into details about all that happened; but I


suggest that this is not a subject which should be put into law without the effects it may have on wild life being seriously considered.

Lieut.-Colonel Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I want very strongly to support the suggestion that the Government should look at this again, because I think it is far more cruel, and far more inhuman, than anything to do with steel traps. When you get poison laid about anywhere in the country, you are going to have a most enormous destruction of cats and dogs. Families cannot, keep their cats indoors, and they will be out, and will be killed. Not only will it affect that animal, but it will affect every animal known in wild life. It will affect not only the animals, but birds. It will get almost every bird that goes to carrion, because you cannot possibly limit the putting down of this poison to places where the dead animal cannot be got at by some other animal or bird.
The poison will spread through our rivers, because after it has been eaten the animal that has taken it will go for water, and you will find that a great many of the sick animals will be into the river, and there will be polluted water, and a certain number of persons drink the water out of rivers. Therefore, I ask Ministers to go into this again. I think it will give far more trouble than they realise. I would like to say again, as I said in Committee, that this is really being done only to try and help out the idle man who is told to destroy vermin. Any good gamekeeper or naturalist will get rid of animals which are a nuisance to farm crops without having to use poison and without having to use steel traps.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I only want to put one point to the House. As the Minister will recall, he gained considerable time in Committee by the multiplicity of the assurances which he gave. I ask him to give us an assurance in respect of the third of these Amendments—the power to destroy all game during the close season. Once we initiate the right to take wild life during the close season, we run the risk of destroying, and completely eliminating all game throughout the country. I am using the word in no sporting sense, but in the technical sense in which it is defined in the Game Act. It is almost impossible to limit the use of

the powers once they are allowed. I think it is essential, before we grant such exceedingly wide powers as are asked for in such exceedingly exceptional cases, to know rather more of what is the right hon. Gentleman's intention, and how far he proposes to use the powers for which he is asking.

Mr. M. Philips Price: I should like to support those who are asking for further explanations as to why it should be necessary to destroy game during the breeding season. There may a reason, but I have not yet heard it. I can see there could be reason that power should be taken to destroy during the breeding season certain animals and certain birds, more particularly wood pigeons and rooks, but I do not see why it should refer to all game. In regard to the proposed new Subsection (3), the use of poison, I cannot support those who take the view that poison is a great danger. It is not a great danger if it is properly used. I think we ought to keep a balance in this matter. Certain poison gases, certain chemicals which produce gas, to destroy rabbits and vermin can be used without any danger to any other animals, by laying all poison in the runs for rats, and so on; so that, with proper control, it should cause danger to the life of no other animals. If the poison were laid one evening, and the person responsible went round to collect next morning all the dead bodies, there would be no danger. So I think it is reasonable to give these powers in the new Subsection (3), but I should like further reason why game should be included in the previous Subsection.

Sir G. Jeffreys: I should like to join in the protest against the laying of poison in the open. I cannot agree with the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Philips Price) who said that, with proper care, poison could be safely used. There will always be careless people about, and if people are allowed to put down poison, they will not take proper care. During the war there was an order issued by the Ministry that care was to be taken in setting steel traps in the open, and that they were to be put only under thick bushes, and so on, where other animals than those for which they were set would not get at them. People did not take that necessary trouble and that necessary care, and it will be exactly the same with poison. If it is laid down, as has been pointed out


by my hon. Friends, it will quite certainly be picked up, by animals other than those for which it is laid, and by domestic animals, and they will be killed or maimed, or undergo severe cruelty. It is a very retrograde step in this civilised age to legalise in any sort of way the laying of poison in the open in exposed places where animals and birds get at it.
I hope the Minister will think again about this. I do not think it is a reasonable Amendment to put into the Bill, or a reasonable power to give people to lay poison indiscriminately. That does not affect the use in any way of poison gas in circumstances which were referred to by the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Philips Price). Poison gas can certainly be effective and need not be harmful either to animals or to human beings. But poison gas is not a sovereign remedy, by any manner of means. In very heavy clay soil, where every aperture can be stopped up, it may be very useful against rabbits and so forth, but in porous and chalk soil it is absolutely ineffective. I hope the Minister will think again about this question of the laying of poison in the open for animals, which may involve serious cruelty, which I am sure is not contemplated.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Baldwin: I add my plea to the Minister to think again about this proposal. It is a lazy way of dealing with pests. The Minister knows that there is no one to see whether or not 'reasonable precautions are taken. I have had some experience of rats killed by pest control officials during the war who have insisted on laying poison. There is one particular animal which will feed upon carrion—there are not many that will—and it is the badger, a very useful animal in keeping down the pest of rabbits. There is no animal that will control rabbits better than the badger and if this poison is laid in an indiscriminate manner, even if rats are killed, and even if one goes out to collect the rats in the early morning, the badger will be at the rats first.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Will the Solicitor-General reply to the points that have been raised?

The Solicitor-General: I will reply very briefly. The hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) has referred to Subsection (3). There is a clear definition with regard to animals

and birds, and only animals are incorporated in the Section under the 1911 Act. With regard to the putting down of poison we are adopting and making use of the section which has been worked since 1928. The poison that it is desired to use is poison gas. With regard to the question of game, pheasants have been known to become a considerable pest and they are principally the type of game which are aimed at. The persons who will judge whether it is necessary to use the powers will be the county executive committee, and I think they can be relied upon.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 78, line 45, leave out:
notwithstanding that apart from this section
and insert:
if apart from this subsection.

In line 47, leave out from "law,' to end of line 7, on page 79, and insert:
Provided that a requirement may be so imposed to kill or destroy game within the meaning of the Game Act, 1831, at a time of year at which apart from this proviso the killing or destruction would be prohibited by section three of that Act; and for the purposes of the last foregoing subsection a person shall not be deemed not to have the right to comply with a requirement falling within this proviso by reason only that apart from this proviso compliance therewith would be prohibited as aforesaid.
(3) In the proviso to section eight of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911 (which allows the putting down of poison for destroying rats, mice or other small vermin so long as reasonable precautions are taken to prevent injury to domestic animals and wild birds) for the words "rats, mice" there shall be substituted the words "animals, other than deer or hares, to which section ninety-five of the Agriculture Act, 1947, applies."—[Mr. T. Williams.]

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 79, line 16, at the end to insert:
Provided that regulations under this subsection may provide that for the purposes of the proviso referred to in subsection (3) of this section any such other animals specified in the regulations shall not be treated as animals to which this section applies.
This is an Amendment consequential on what has gone before. What this does is simply to say that such other animals as are brought under the provisions of Subsection (3) can be dealt with either inside or outside the scope of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, and either can or cannot have poison gas used against them.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: It is said that the Minister has power to make regula-


tions, but I cannot see that the right hon. Gentleman has power to make any regulations at all. The last two lines refer to
any such other animals specified in the regulations shall not be treated as animals to which this Section applies.
This is inconsistent with the Amendments just made. Quite apart from that, however, I suggest that this proviso which the Solicitor-General is seeking to insert is quite unintelligent. It says,
… regulations under this subsection may provide that for the purposes of the proviso referred to …
What really is the intention of this proviso, and what really is the meaning of it? It is one of the best examples of bad drafting which we have seen for a long time.

Mr. H. Fraser: Once one has poison in the open, it is perfectly absurd, and one of the objects for which poison can be used is the destruction of pheasants.

The Solicitor-General: I did not mention birds at all.

Mr. Fraser: Pheasants have been mentioned, and when people living in this country are on inadequate rations they will take a pheasant home and poison themselves.

Captain Crookshank: I do not think we want to get heated over this affair. I see signs of risk in that direction. I suggest to the Solicitor-General that he might be able to say that he would look at the drafting of this Amendment. I really wanted to understand what was meant and entirely failed, and I still fail, in spite of his explanation. Nobody in the world could make any sense of these four lines. If he would only say he would look at the drafting, quite apart from the merits, I dare say we would agree.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 102.—(Recovery of sums by Minister.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 82, line 8, to leave out Clause 102.
The object of the Amendment is reasonably clear. The Crown Proceedings Bill renders Clause 102 completely unnecessary and in view of the Crown Proceedings Bill being on its way through Parliament, this Clause becomes unnecessary in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 105.—(Service of notices.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 83, line 24, after "some," to insert "responsible."
This Amendment is designed to meet the criticisms which were made by hon. Gentlemen opposite in Committee on Clause 105. That is the Clause which deals with the service of notices. It was argued by hon. Gentlemen opposite that Subsection (4) as it stood would permit of a notice being served upon somebody on premises who might have absolutely no authority to receive it and who might be a chance, casual person who happened to be found there. That argument we have met by inserting the word "responsible" before the word "person", so that a notice can only be given to a "responsible person" on the premises. The second ground of criticism was that, as the Clause stood, if there was anybody on the premises it would be impossible to serve the notice by affixing it to the premises. This next Amendment, in line 24, to leave out from "or," to "by," in line 25, deals with that point by removing the words which made it obligatory, if there was anybody on the premises, to serve it on them. In that way we have met the second argument, and made it an alternative option: if you can see somebody who is a responsible person on the premises, you serve the notice on him; if you do not, you affix it to the premises, and you are not precluded from affixing it to the premises if there is anybody on the premises on whom you can serve it.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: This Amendment is to some extent an improvement in the Bill, and to some extent meets the arguments put forward from this side during the Committee stage. I still do not regard the Clause as entirely satisfactory and I hope it will be further examined. The hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to a "responsible person", but there is no definition of what constitutes a "responsible person". The point was put to the hon. and learned Gentleman that a conspicuous object on the land might well be a movable object, and that if there was a vehicle or a cart on the premises, service might be effected by sticking a copy of the notice on that vehicle, although it had no connection


with the owner of the property. I suggest that the Clause requires looking at again. Although the hon. and learned Gentleman has done his best, and gone some way to meet us, it is not satisfactory and does not conform to similar provisions in other Acts. There is a strong case even now for trying to produce a code which can be used not only in a Measure such as this, but in other Measures relating to the delivery of notices of this kind.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 83, line 24, to leave out from "or," to "by", in line 25.—[Mr. T. Williams.]

CLAUSE 107.—(Interpretation.)

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 84, line 18, at the end, to insert:
(c) to land designated as land subject to compulsory acquisition under any public general or local Act.
This Amendment seeks to bring into relation the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Bill and the provisions of this Measure. Under the Town and Country Planning Bill, the Minister can designate, or give approval to the designation of, land as subject or liable to compulsory purchase within a period of 10 years, and there is no limitation to the areas which may be so designated. In this Bill the right hon. Gentleman is given very wide powers of direction to landlords and tenants of agricultural land. I suggest that it is only right that his power of giving directions, involving an expenditure of considerable sums of money either by landlords or by tenants of land which is within the area designated by the Minister of Town and Country Planning, should be excluded, because, after all, what justification is there for saying to a farmer or a landlord, "You must spend a large sum of money in putting up buildings of a particular character," when the Minister of Town and Country Planning has given sanction to the compulsory acquisition of those premises within a short period, and to a conversion to a purpose quite different from agriculture? I suggest that if the Minister accepts this Amendment, it will not prejudice the interests of agriculture or the interests of the nation, but it will provide a proper co-ordination between this Bill and the Town and Country Planning Bill.

Major Mott-Radclyffe: I beg to second the Amendment.
As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, in Committee we were not altogether satisfied that there was adequate co-ordination between the Minister of Town and Country Planning and the Minister of Agriculture on this very important point, and as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) has suggested, the object of the Amendment is really to hover two possible sets of circumstances. The first is the case of land not actually under cultivation, for example, heathland being designated for agricultural purposes in the immediate future, when it is known that within to years the land is probably going to be required for a satellite town, or any other non-agricultural purpose. The second is land now under cultivation being continued to be designated for agricultural purposes when again in the next 10 years it is known that that particular area is likely to be required for a non-agricultural purpose. In either of these eventualities it would be putting an owner or occupier in an intolerable position if he were directed to spend money on capital equipment for buildings in order to farm efficiently when within 10 years, or a shorter time, he would be told that all his capital and labour have been spent in vain because his land is cooling out of production for a non-agricultural purpose. I hope the Minister will see the force of my arguments.

Mr. Marquand: I think the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) had two points in mind. The first was that there should be no difference between the two Bills, and, secondly, that under this Bill there should be no possible injurious effect on the owner of land designated under the Town and Country Planning Bill. We must remember that the word "designation" has two senses. In the planning legislation the land is designated as liable to compulsory purchase; under this Bill the land is designated as agricultural land; and I would remind the House that before land can be designated by the Minister of Agriculture it must be land which in his opinion, ought to be brought into agricultural use. Much of the land designated for compulsory purchase under town and country planning legislation will already be agricutural land within the meaning


of the definition. In other words, the majority of land will be farm land used for commercial farming purposes.
The Amendment would not, therefore, affect such land in any way. It is already agricultural land. It there is other land not at present being used for agriculture or for the purposes of trade or business and it is designated for compulsory purchase, the Minister would only be designating it if, in the Minister's opinion, it ought to be used for agriculture. It might, for instance, be a piece of derelict land which ultimately might be wanted for some non-agricultural purpose. The effect of designating it for compulsory purchase does not mean it will be bought necessarily within the next year or two.

Major Mott-Radclyffe: That is a short period, but it may not always be a short period. It may last 10 years. Surely, during that period it might be reasonable to use that land for agricultural purposes if the Minister holds it suitable for that purpose. Surely, it would not be justifiable to leave the land idle.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: It is not a question whether the land is not in use for 10 years for agricultural purposes. The point is that under the Bill as now drafted, the owner of land or the occupier might be directed to buy £4,000 or £5,000 worth of fresh equipment, and it is doubtful whether in 10 years he could earn the interest on that equipment.

Mr. Marquand: I was trying to divide the subject raised into two parts. I suggest the first is the question of any con' fusion of the Town and Country Planning Bill with this Bill. I do not think the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Town and Country Planning feel they are overlapping in any way. The hon. and gallant Member for Windsor (Major Mott-Radclyffe) said that if land has been designated for compulsory purchase for non-agricultural use, the fact will have to be taken into account in deciding what standard of estate management or good husbandry would be reasonable in that particular case. I do not think the Minister, having decided to make use of land during that period, would require the standard of estate management to be in excess of what was reasonable. But that is a matter for administration. I ask hon. Members to accept the assurance that

such administration will be conducted reasonably.

Major Mott-Radclyffe: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether this is the sort of case he visualises under Clause 81? Is this the case where the Minister of Agriculture might step in and acquire land designated under the Town and Country Planning Bill?

Mr. Marquand: Certainly not.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I would like to put one question to the hon. Gentleman. He has expressed the proposition that the Minister of Agriculture can designate, for the purpose of agriculture, land which has already been designated under the Town and Country Planning Bill by the Minister of Town and Country Planning as being liable for compulsory purchase. I suggest that might cause confusion. He says that if that happens the burden imposed on the landlord and the tenant would only be reasonable having regard to the fact that the land is liable to compulsory purchase. Will he go so far to meet us as to say that he will insert words to that effect in this Bill? As the Bill stands, there is no limitation placed upon the Minister of Agriculture as to the obligations he can impose on land which he designates, and which is also designated under the Town and Country Planning Bill.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. T. Williams: If the hon. and learned Member will recall what happened in Committee, he will remember that not only the situation of the land, but all other relevant circumstances have to be taken into consideration. Since this was moved by Members of the Opposition, he should haze been the first to remember it. This would be a case where every relevant circumstance would be taken into consideration.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, in page 84, line 22, to leave out from "occupied," to "and," in line 23, and to insert:
'by the same person for the purpose of farming the land.
This Amendment is to give effect to the desire expressed by the Opposition during the Committee stage. The Amendment indicates that "occupied" would cover


all farm buildings whether on the farm or off the farm, together with the farm house, which were occupied by the occupier.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Williams: I beg to move, in page 85, line 21, at the end, to insert:
'relevant circumstances,' in relation to an owner or occupier, includes all circumstances affecting management or farming other than the personal circumstances of the owner or occupier.
During the discussion of Clauses 10 and 11 on the question of good estate management and rules of good husbandry it was suggested that regard should be paid not only to the character of the land, but also to other relevant circumstances, and those words were accepted. The object was to make it clear that all relevant circumstances relating to farming or estate management should be taken into account. However, during the discussions fears were expressed that the words might go too far—so far as to cover the personal circumstances of either the owner or occupier. It was suggested, for example, that if the owner had insufficient capital, was utterly uncreditworthy, was unable to borrow, and was unable to carry out the responsibility of good husbandry or good estate management, he would be able to plead financial inability as a good excuse for not carrying out his duties. It was suggested that financial disability might be due to extraneous circumstances unconnected with the land, and I promised to look at the matter again. After reconsideration, I suggest that this Amendment interprets the words "all relevant circumstances" to mean matters affecting the farming or management of land and not the personal circumstances of the owner or occupier concerned. This definition will affect Clauses 10 and 11 and I am sure hon. Members will agree with it.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Relevant circumstances include all circumstances affecting management or farming. The Minister has just said that they would include the fact that the land has been designated as liable to compulsory purchase. I doubt whether that could be said to be the case, unless there was specific reference to it in the definition stating that that was the case. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not add to this definition in another place, words to the effect that one of the rele-

vant circumstances to be taken into consideration will be the fact that the land in question is designated to be subject, or liable to compulsory purchase under the Town and Country Planning Act. I do not think that is covered by the Amendment if that is the intention. I ask him to look at it again so that it will be quite clear and that there will be no misunderstanding.

Mr. T. Williams: All I can say is that "other relevant circumstances" means "other relevant circumstances."

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Provisions where permanent pasture directed to be ploughed up or other cultivations to be carried out.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 87, line 28, at the end, to insert:
5. Where the ploughing-up of permanent pasture or the carrying out of any other act of cultivation is reasonably necessary in consequence of the giving of a direction, this Schedule shall apply as if the ploughing-up or other act of cultivation were required by the direction and specified therein; and subsection (5) of section fifteen and subsection (5) of section ninety-two of this Act shall be construed accordingly.
The Schedule says that where a direction has been served which requires the ploughing-up of permanent pasture, the person on whom the direction is served shall not, by virtue of compliance with that direction, become liable in certain instances to damages or be under any responsibility to pay compensation. This Amendment is made necessary by the Amendments moved to Clause 92. The Minister under Clause 92, as amended, can now give directions saying that not more, than a certain amount shall be used for grassland. The consequence of that might be that permanent pasture would have to be ploughed up. This Amendment therefore says that where permanent pasture has to be ploughed up, not as a direct compliance with a direction, but as a reasonable consequence of doing what the direction enjoins, then the person to whom the directions is given shall be under the same immunity in respect of damages as he would have been if the direction had directly enjoined the ploughing up of that permanent pasture. It is consequential to the Amendment to Clause 92, and it is a measure of justice.

Amendment agreed to

Orders of the Day — FIFTH SCHEDULE.—(Applications for certificates of bad husbandry.)

Major Mott-Radclyffe: I beg to move, in page 89, line 21, after "not", to insert "without the consent of the Minister."
This Amendment seeks to allow the Minister to give leave to a landowner, in certain cases, to apply for a certificate of bad husbandry in spite of the fact that a previous order is already in force. This would get over the rather curious position which, as the Schedule is drafted, although the supervision order is in force, the landowner is precluded from any opportunity from exercising his rights and applying for a certificate. We think this is very unfair.

Mr. York: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Marquand: The reason this Schedule is drawn as it is is simply that if an owner were allowed to make such an application the Minister would be obliged to grant a certificate. The very fact that a tenant is under supervision shows that he is a bad farmer who cannot be farming in accordance with the rules of good husbandry. There seems to be no point, therefore, in the proposal put forward, since it is not at all clear in what circumstances the Minister could or could not give consent. The issue of a certificate would simply be automatic. I should like to remind hon. Members that the fact that the tenant is under supervision, and that the landowner is, therefore, precluded from asking for a certificate of bad husbandry, does not in any way prejudice the position of the landowner. He will have available to him the supervision and dispossession machinery instead of a certificate of bad husbandry. If the tenant is under supervision, and the landlord considers he is not making satisfactory improvement, he is entitled to go to the committee, after a period of 12 months' supervision, and request that the tenant be dispossessed. I explained this 'previously, and won the admiration of the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) for my eloquence, if nothing else. A landlord, if his request is refused, will be allowed to appeal to the tribunal, and if either the Minister or the tribunal grants the landlord's request and dispossesses the tenant, he will leave in three months without compensation. There is no essential differ-

ence between that machinery and the bad husbandry machinery. The effects are the same, and the landlord's position is no more affected by the one than by the other.

Amendment negatived.

Orders of the Day — SEVENTH SCHEDULE.—(Minor and Consequential Amendments.)

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, in page 91, line 37, to leave out "two months," and to insert "one month."
Paragraph 3 of the Seventh Schedule amends Section 11 of the 1923 Act, which deals with a tenant's right to claim compensation for damage to crops from game. Section 11 provided that, in order to substantiate a claim for compensation, a tenant must give notice to his landlord as soon as might be after the damage had occurred. Paragraph 3 amends Section II so as to provide that the tenant shall give notice within two months after the tenant of the holding has become, or ought reasonably to have become, aware of the occurrence of the damage. It was suggested, during the discussion of the Schedule in Committee, that two months was too long a period, and that if should be reduced to 14 days. I promised to look at this point, and undertook to consider a concession to the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane). I now make that concession of, at least, one month. I hope, therefore, he likes it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 91, line 42, leave out "two months," and insert "one month."—[Mr.T.Williams.]

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, in page 92, line 43, at the end, to insert:
(4) Where under section thirty of this Act the effect of a notice to quit part of a holding depends on the Minister or the Agricultural Land Tribunal consenting to the operation of the notice, the period within which, under the proviso to subsection (1) of the said section twenty-seven, the tenant may accept the notice as a notice to quit the entire holding shall run from the time at which it is determined that the notice has effect instead of from the time at which the notice is served.
Section 27 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, provides that, where a landlord serves on his tenant a notice to quit part of the holding, the tenant may, within 28 days, elect to treat the notice as a notice to quit the entire holding. If, under the provisions of Clause 30 of the


Bill, the tenant objects to the notice to quit part of the holding, he may wish to reserve his right, in the event of consent being given, to treat the notice as applying to the whole holding. But he will not know whether or not consent is being given until the Minister has decided the issue or the agricultural land tribunal have taken a decision. The purpose of this Amendment therefore is to provide that the period of 28 days allowed under Section 27 of the 1923 Act should run from the date on which consent is given by the Minister or tribunal.

Amendment agreed to.

1 a.m.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 93, line 27, to leave out from beginning, to end of line 33, and to insert: "arbitration under the Act of 1923."
In agriculture you never know when you are going to come on the snags. Here is a matter tucked away almost unostentatiously and which, but for the vigilance, of my friends, might almost have escaped notice. It is really of importance. It appears in paragraph 3 (3) of the Seventh Schedule. The purport of that is to amend Section 30 (2) of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923. To put it as briefly as possible, it provides that if the tenant exercises his rights in any such way as to cause grave injury to the holding then the landlord has certain remedies, included among which is the remedy of obtaining an injunction, or, should the case so require, of restraining the tenant from exercising his rights under the Section.
The paragraph of the Schedule which we are proposing to amend provides that instead of having an ordinary straightforward application by the landlord for obtaining an injunction to restrain the tenant, the Minister shall butt in on the action in order to decide as a question of fact whether or not the tenant has injuriously affected the land by the cropping operation he is entitled to pursue under the Section generally. This is a question of principle which ought never to be brought into a matter of this sort at all. What business has the right hon. Gentleman to intervene in a legal proceeding such as an injunction? The courts are well aware of how best to obtain the requisite evidence to decide whether or not an injury to the land has

been sustained. They have been doing it for centuries long before there was anything such as a Ministry of Agriculture. They are perfectly well able to continue to do it and I urge the House not to accept this principle. I know perfectly well that the right hon. Gentleman will seek to show that the object of the Bill is to try to operate machinery by the industry for the industry within the industry. I would forestall his argument, knowing perfectly well what it will be. I would venture to say that in this case it is not a question of the industry governing itself. It is a question of the settlement of a dispute of a highly technical problem for which the law courts are the proper place, and it is not for the right hon. Gentleman acting through his agents in the area, who are likely themselves to be involved in the dispute, to decide questions of fact which should come before the courts.

Mr. Baldwin: I beg to second the Amendment.
We merely ask that the dispute shall be referred to arbitration. These men have practical technical knowledge, and we think they are better able to judge than the amateurs proposed by the Minister. Arbitration has been called in at least six times previously in this Bill, and we do not think that an additional occasion or two will make that much difference.

The Solicitor-General: Paragraph 7 (3) of the Seventh Schedule makes certain Amendments to Section 30 of the 1923 Act. That Section makes it quite clear that produce may be disposed of at the tenant's discretion except in the last year of tenancy. But it goes on to provide that if he exercises his right in such a way as to injure or deteriorate the holding the landlord should be able to obtain an injunction against him. It has been thought however that the court is not a suitable body to determine a technical farming matter of this kind. Paragraph 7 (3) therefore provides that, in such cases, the landlord should obtain a certificate from the Minister and that this shall be conclusive proof to the court of the effect of the tenant's action. The effect of this Amendment, if it were accepted, would be that arbitration would be substituted for the Minister's certificate. The Opposition apparently thinks that the county agricultural executive committees are not


so competent as to deal with such a case. I can only say that we think the opposite to be the case. If, unfortunately, the lack of faith in the executive committees which is shown by hon. Members opposite were justified, the whole machinery of the Bill would fall down. But we think that the committees can be left to do their job in an efficient manner, and I regret, for that, as for other reasons, that I cannot accept this Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Orders of the Day — EIGHTH SCHEDULE.—(Provisions of Small Holdings and Allotments Acts applied or saved.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 98, line 5, column 2, after "shall," to insert: "subject to the modification hereinafter provided."
This and the following Amendment are really drafting Amendments. The particular Section of the Act of 1923 has been repealed, and we ask, therefore, that this Amendment be included in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: in line 17, column 2, at end, to insert:
(2) The requirement in paragraph (c) of Subsection (1) of Section six that the holding shall be cultivated in accordance with the rules of good husbandry as defined in the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, shall be construed as a requirement that the owner or occupier, as the case may be, shall fulfill his responsibilities to farm the holding in accordance with the rules of good husbandry, and Section eleven of this Act shall apply accordingly."—[The Solicitor-General.]

Orders of the Day — NINTH SCHEDULE.—(Constitution etc. of Commission, Sub-Commission, Committees and Tribunals.)

Mr. Vane: I beg to move, in page 103, line 14, to leave out "attach," and to insert "delegate."

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think it would be of advantage to take the next two Amendments together.

Mr. Vane: As the next six Amendments all hang together, would it be possible to discuss all six together?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The last four Amendments have not been selected.

Mr. Vane: Although this Amendment is really the last on the Order Paper, I think it is very far from

being the least. In fact, I think it is one of the most important we have discussed during these last two days. The Minister has just explained to us how he has implicit faith in the county executive committees, and if they do not work well, then the whole machinery of the Bill, I think he said, will fall to the ground. I suggest to the House that if the staff which is to serve these committees is not of the very best, the committees will not work and the advantages, if any, expected to accrue from this Bill will be very slender indeed. At the present moment it is provided that the staff of county agricultural executive committees and sub-committees shall be attached to them by the Minister. I can scarcely imagine a more curious method of appointment, because the members of the National Agricultural Advisory Committee, which I believe has to attach them to the executive committees, will find themselves in a most awkward position. They will be to some extent servants of the Minister and to some extent servants of the' executive committees. It is an old historic truth that a man cannot very easily serve two masters. Exactly what is the Minister expecting these most important technical persons to try to do?
We consider that the Minister should amend this Subsection so that the appointment follows one of two ways. The first is that he should delegate powers of appointment to the executive committees so that they can choose their own staff. We consider it quite unreasonable that they should be expected to employ the number the Minister might lay down for them, and beyond that they should have the appointment and removal of individuals. If the staff is attached to them by the Minister, they will not have freedom of appointment and removal. I believe there has been certain correspondence between the agricultural executive committees about the number of staff intended to be attached to them
Alternatively, we consider the principle of consultation should be adopted, and we desire that consultation should take place between the Minister and the county committees before any individual appointment is made, so that it is perfectly clear that persons employed by the committees are the choice of the committees as well as their actual servants. We consider it is most dangerous that this Schedule should be left in the form in which it is


drafted. It is neither fair to the staff nor to the farmers whom that staff is expected to serve. They will have the dual functions of advising and executing, and also we can say, without exaggeration, a disciplinary function. They cannot help to build up the confidence we hope will rest in this service if they have to advise the farmer one day and next week have to appear on the farm in order to direct him. This is something which could be improved by a small Amendment, and I beg the Minister at this late hour to see our point of view, and perhaps break his record, which would be to the advantage of the whole industry.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Baldwin: I beg to second the Amendment.
I feel sure the Minister is going to accept it, and I would like to remind him of what he said a few minutes ago, that we had not sufficient faith and confidence in the executive committees. Yet he has not sufficient faith in them to allow them to make their own appointments. I hope he will remember what he said, and give them this power of appointment.

Mr. T. Williams: Nothing would give me greater joy on the last Amendment, and on the last day of the Report stage, than to be able to say "Yes" to the hon. Member; but, unfortunately for both of us, appointments in the Civil Service can be made only by the Civil Service Commission, either for permanent or temporary posts. There is, therefore, no possibility of the Civil Service Commission allowing the county executive committees to appoint their own civil servants, and in particular that applies equally to the advisory staffs. The object of this Amendment is to insert a statutory requirement that the Minister shall consult the county committees, a point which was raised in Committee. I declared then, and I repeat now in all good faith, that, of course, we shall consult the committees about their requirements of staff, and the type and kind of person who will serve their interests best. But there is no need for a statutory requirement in the Bill compelling the Minister to consult his own agents.
The main argument, however, is a constitutional one. As the committees are the Minister's agents, it would not be proper to require him to consult his agents before he could make any appoint-

ment or take any particular action. Moreover, the Minister is responsible to Parliament for the actions of the committees, and, of course, for implementing the Bill, and the choice of staff and the stationing of staff in the various counties is one of the important ways of ensuring the satisfactory administration of policy. A statutory requirement of this kind would derogate from the Minister's responsibility, since it implies that the Minister must accept the views of the committee unless there are overwhelming reasons against it. I repeat what I said in Committee, that I could not imagine appointing a person, say to Yorkshire, who had his foundations in Cornwall, or some other county where the farming conditions were totally different from the county in which he was to begin as an officer. It would be necessary to consult with the county executive committee about the type of person best suited to their purpose. I undertake that before appointments are made consultation shall take place, and that as far as possible we will try to appoint officers best suited to the purposes of the executive committees, and officers who will try and help the executive committee to produce the maximum efficiency in our farming life.

Captain Crookshank: The right hon. Gentleman is ending up the proceedings on Report true to form by making us one last assurance and putting nothing in the Bill; it has been the same old story during 25 meetings upstairs, and two days here.

Mr. T. Williams: It is at least consistent.

Captain Crookshank: But rather misguided consistency. I did not think he would not listen to this proposal. He says there is no possibility except of the Civil Service Commissioners appointing the civil servants, but why assume you have got to have civil servants? Why not employ the employees of the county agricultural executive committees? I think to that extent the Minister begged the question. They do not become civil servants because he is going to pay for them. It does not preclude him from letting the committees appoint their own staff because he is going to pay them salaries. Does he think it does? What happens about the Land Commission? They are themselves to appoint officers and servants, but the Minister is to pay them. Why cannot the same thing appear here?

Mr. T. Williams: Whatever servants the Land Commission will appoint, they will be appointed by the Civil Service Commissioners after consultation with the Land Commission.

Captain Crookshank: It does not say anything of the sort. We are to assume that. I do not see the difference in these two cases, but it would be taxing the Minister too much for him to give another assurance about that now. I think it is a pity he has taken that line, and that he would not find a way of delegating to the executive committees the opportunity of appointing their own officers and servants. However, he rejected that and refuses to put in the word "consultations", although he assures us consultations will be made before appointments are made. He says one cannot do it in the Bill, one cannot have consultations because the executive committees are agents, but he is going to consult them just the same. I do not see why one should not consult one's agents. They are outside bodies not directly under the Minister in the sense that his own staff is. They are a new hybrid breed. That might have been an occasion even for a Socialist Minister to make a precedent, but he sticks to the old method of giving one more assurance.

Mr. T. Williams: I will reply just to satisfy the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's curiosity. The persons to be associated with the county executive committees are persons whom we want to receive reasonable salaries and Civil Service pension rates. We want the right type of person and to get the job done reasonably well.

Captain Crookshank: I hope the right hon. Gentleman is not going to assume that I think the Civil Service salary is the one inducement by which he is going to get good men to work.

Amendment negatived.

Bill to be read the Third time upon Monday next, and to be printed [Bill 86].

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION (EXEMPTIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

1.26 a.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time "
This Bill has been forced upon us mainly by two facts. First, the abnormally high increase of potato acreage we are attempting to secure, and second, the operation of the provisions of the Act of 1945. The provision I have mainly in mind is that as from the date of the raising of the school age no school children can be exempted from school attendance for the purposes of engaging in remunerative employment.
The potato acreage target for Scotland this year is 220,000 and that is 64 per cent increase on the prewar acreage. I am sure the House will be glad to hear that, despite the difficulties we had this spring with the shortage of labour and the fears that were expressed that the labour would not be forthcoming for the heavy planting programme, we believe the target of 220,000 acres will be reached. The harvesting of the main crop is to be done during the period from the end of September, perhaps including the last week, until the end of October. We really must get the potatoes gathered in that period as there is a very real danger of frost attacking potatoes if they are not gathered by November.
To undertake the gigantic task of in-gathering the potato crop, it is estimated that an additional labour force of 90,000 workers is necessary. That labour force is greater than the labour forces employed in any other industry in Scotland. The question we have to ask ourselves and try to answer is, from where are we going to recruit this great labour force? We anticipate that by recruiting from the ranks of the unemployed and those not normally gainfully employed—married women—and other civilian sources, we shall get about 28,000 workers. That is about the number we got last year, and we have every reason to believe that we shall get an equal number in 1947. We also expect about 40,000 workers from among the members of the Polish forces in this country, many of whom are going into the Resettlement Corps, from prisoner of


war sources, together with our own services. We shall find it most difficult to provide accommodation for that very large labour force in the main potato growing areas, but we think we will get the accommodation to house more than 40,000. That gives a total of 68,000 only. I said we estimated that we require a labour force of 90,000, so we are 22,000 short.
If we are to harvest this crop we must get assistance from yet another source, or other sources. It would seem to me that there are only two other sources from which the workers can be drawn. First, they might be drawn from among the workers engaged in other occupations, and, second, from the schools. I think it will he accepted on all sides that we could not possibly contemplate at this time, and in our present economic difficulties, the extraction of that number of workers from other occupations for the potato harvesting period. In the circumstances, we are forced to the conclusion that we must get assistance again from the school children. In the past, of course, the school children have assisted. They have been made available to us in two ways. The first is by the splitting of the summer holidays. Then we have in many parts of Scotland what is known as the potato holiday. Education authorities in those parts of the country, arrange their holidays so that part of them which usually comes during the summer months is given during the month of October. A very large number of children have for more years than many of us care to remember been made available by exemptions, and for some years past it has been perfectly legal to exempt children over 12 years of age from attending school to engage in this work. That class of exemption was brought to an end by the Act of 1945.
I should say that the splitting of holidays is not considered to be a means of making children available to the extent to which they are necessary for this employment. We can only arrange the splitting of holidays so that children will be free for two or three weeks during the harvesting period. They may, in fact, be free during weeks when we are experiencing inclement weather, and, if there were not provision for exemptions, they would not be available for the potato harvest when the weather is suitable for the work to be undertaken. We find that the edu-

cation authorities are becoming increasingly less keen on making school children available by splitting holidays. I had a series of conferences with the education authorities throughout Scotland. We discussed these matters very thoroughly, and the educationists in most parts of Scotland impressed upon me the desirability of introducing emergency legislation so that exemptions from school attendance might be permitted for a short period during the time when it could be reasonably expected that we would require workers for an abnormally high potato acreage. Having gone into the matter very fully, we came to the conclusion that we had better introduce a Bill such as this.
The Bill is a very short one. It gives the Secretary of State power to serve a notice on any local authority stating that, in his opinion, it is desirable that a specified number of children should be granted exemption on days to be notified to the authorities, and the authority shall thereupon grant exemptions to such numbers of children over 13 years of age, provided that the other conditions of the Act and the regulations are satisfied. I make it clear that hitherto it has been possible to exempt children from school attendance over 12 years of age. The age is now being raised to 13 and children will only be made available over 13. There is another essential difference, however, from past practice. Hitherto, education authorities have decided whether or not they would grant exemptions for this or any other purpose. But when I discussed the matter in many parts of Scotland at conferences specially convened, I was pressed by educationists who had for very many years made children available and who co-operated with the Government during the war years in making a greater number of children available, to secure that this burden should be as evenly shared as possible by the whole of the population of Scotland.
They argued with me that if the Secretary of State should require that a certain acreage of potatoes should be planted and so make it necessary for a demand to be made on the young people of this country who are still at school, then the decision to grant exemptions was one that ought to be taken by the Secretary of State and not left to be taken by those whose main responsibility was to look after the education of the children. They said that it was most unfair to the


children in one area to give them an opportunity of coming and assisting in the harvest whilst the authority in the neighbouring area could very well say that, notwithstanding the wishes of the parents of the children, no children would be made available. I was much impressed by the arguments made, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State also was when I reported to him. So, the Bill provides that the Secretary of State shall accept the responsibility of deciding how many children shall be made available. This further fact, of course, must be borne in mind, that we are not dictating to any of the children that they shall help us in this work. The Secretary of State shall only give notice to the authority that a given number of children will be necessary, and if the authority has applications from the parents of the children up to that number, then the authority is obliged, if the other conditions are fulfilled, to make that number available.
I think that in the Bill we have offered all reasonable safeguards. It provides that the regulations to be made by the Secretary of State shall have regard to the health of the children; shall seek to secure that the health of the children is not impaired; shall prohibit other employment; shall regulate the hours of work; shall provide that the children must have suitable clothing; shall provide that suitable arrangements must be made for midday meals; that the children must be properly supervised; that, if necessary, they must be conveyed to and from work in a vehicle that is safe for the conveyance of children and that is so constructed as to afford them protection from the weather. I think the Secretary of State is taking all reasonable safeguards in the interests of the children. The only other point I should like to make is, that the Bill is limited in time. We are providing that the Bill shall remain in force until the end of 1948. That should give us the advantage of the Bill for two potato harvests, those of 1947 and of 1948. We are hoping that by that time it will be possible so to reduce the potato acreage, or to provide for the ingathering of the crop by mechanical means, as to make the use of schoolchildren unnecessary in the potato fields.

1.41 a.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The Joint Under-Secretary has

brought before the House an important proposal, rather too important, I think, to take at this late hour. But it may be that the pressure of the Government's legislative programme is so great that they have to legislate at this somewhat unseemly hour. The Joint Under-Secretary made a strong case, undoubtedly; but it seemed to me that the very strength of his case militated greatly against the contention he made at the end of his remarks that this limited Bill could be dispensed with after two potato harvests. He hopes to draw this year from unemployed and married women some 28,000; from Poles and prisoners of war and our own Services, 40,000. That still leaves him 22,000 short. All those categories will not increase in numbers in future years. It is not to be supposed that the unemployed will increase in future years, and it is not to be supposed that either prisoners of war or Polish soldiers will increase in future years. The hopes he held out that, in the next 12 months, it will be possible greatly to reduce the food production acreage of this country do not, I think, square with the economic picture which other Ministers are drawing, and which, particularly, the agricultural Ministers are drawing; and that, and the other suggestion, that within the time of two potato harvests it will be possible to avoid the necessity of employing this vast force of human labour, are rather illusory hopes.
Therefore, we find that, immediately after passing an Education Act raising the school-leaving age, the Government have to bring in another Bill, taking thus a step to which many educationists take strong exception. These Measures have to be systematised, the Secretary of State himself taking certain responsibility. These are realities which the Government are facing, and one has to consider what has been said by the hon. Member and by hon. Members sitting on that side, and what would be said if we had produced in this House such a Measure. They certainly would not have proceeded as we intend to proceed, to give them support, to give them the support of His Majesty's Opposition. I do not think in the past hon. Members now sitting on that side of the House have realised the harsh compulsion of necessity. They are now being driven to recognise it by events, but many times we have received severe criticisms and harsh judgments while we ourselves


realised the necessity of events. I am glad to find that hon. Members formerly sitting on this side of the House have developed a much greater sense of realism, faced, as I say, with the unpleasant facts of life, because I do not honestly think that it will be possible to recruit any great additional force which will enable us to dispose of this crop now or in the future, nor do I see any prospect of reducing the food producing acreage to enable us to draw in our horns and avoid the recruitment of this extra labour.
While it is right and proper to bring in a temporary Bill, it should address itself to the problem that somehow there will have to be obtained some very large, labour force for seasonal work such as this. This is—let us face it—a kind of direction of labour. The Under-Secretary says it is not so. It simply means that you make it available, that there is no compulsion, but that there is a labour force necessary to prevent the people of this country dying of hunger. If he does not get it, how is he to lift the crop? He is obviously relying on this Bill to close this gap. He has drawn a picture of a shortage of labour to obtain for the people of this country the vital necessity of food, and if this does not meet the position we will need to leave the potatoes to rot in the ground and the people to die of hunger.

Mr. George Thomas: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman suggest that the Minister should direct labour?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am making no such suggestion. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will realise that he is taking the responsibility for the governing of this country, he is taking the responsibility for introducing this Measure. It is his responsibility now, and he must not ask for an answer to those questions from his Majesty's Opposition who have not the authority or power to carry out what they would do. He is responsible for obtaining the food for the people of this country from the soil of this country. He has sketched out a balance sheet tonight which shows a very dangerous deficit, and I say the very figures which he has given in sketching out this deficit will tend to increase the deficit, for some of the forces on which he is relying for labour, are forces which he will not be able to draw upon to

the same extent in the future—prisoners of war and the Polish Corps. The Government are entitled to ask for a breathing space to consider the position. Are we to support them in their proposal to have that breathing space. But it will not be conjured away by this Bill. The hope has been held out that it will be possible in 1948 to allow this Bill to lapse and not again to bring forth to the House another major Measure of this kind prolonging again the necessity, which everyone of us deplores, of cutting into the school year at a very difficult time, and to that extent handicapping and prejudicing the chances of the young people of this country. It is a problem to which the whole House will have to address itself. It is a problem which, in future years, Ministers of Agriculture, and of Labour, will need to be more prepared to deal with by far more constructive proposals.

1.50 a.m.

Miss Herbison: I also feel that the time at which this Bill is introduced into this House is not the time at which we should be taking what I consider to be a most important Measure. I have no intention of voting against the Bill if it comes to the question of a vote, but I do feel that some other method might well have been found to get the extra labour we must have if we are to get the potato harvest in this year and, possibly, next year. It is true, as the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) has said, that we on this side have always been against the exemption of children. I feel that exemption is a very bad thing. It will give to those who are needed for the potato harvest only a certain number of children and it will militate against some children as it will not against others. I do feel, having taken part in harvest camps during the war, that another method should have been found. I would not say that I oppose this on grounds of child labour. I know from experience of the camps that the boys got much out of the work which they did. Conditions in the camps were good. They found what it was to live a communal life, and they felt, also, that they were giving something to the nation. All these things are very important for the boys, provided that they are not too young.
My chief objection is that where one institutes a policy of exemptions, rather than


the splitting of holidays—which I prefer —one will find parents refusing to allow their children to apply for the exemption, even if the boy or the girl wants to do so. It must be seen that the children lose nothing of education so long as the school is open. I taught at a school where I should be surprised it six boys asked for exemptions. I am afraid that the children we still get into this labour force are those who are, not very interested in their education, or those whose parents think that the little extra money they will get from the potato picking will help them. From what the Under-Secretary has said, the education authorities have been against the splitting of holidays. Again from my experience as a teacher, particularly of boys and girls going forward for their higher leaving certificate, this break in October is a very serious thing.
It is not a case, as the Under-Secretary said, of two or three weeks. Where we had holidays in the cities during the war, it was a case of four weeks from the middle of September to the middle of October, the time when potatoes to a great extent are lifted in Scotland. I should much prefer, even if it did need legislation and even if it was not liked by those responsible in the educational authorities of Scotland, that that step had been taken by the Scottish Office. I would prefer to have criticism from the educational authorities provided we are doing everything to give justice to every child in Scotland. I feel that in this Measure there is a grave danger of an injustice being done to some of our children. I am not at all sure that we are getting from the Armed Forces in this country the amount of men we could have got for this harvest. I feel that sufficient examination has not been made of this point. We find in certain quarters that complaints are made that the men in the Forces do not have very much to do, and if this is a national emergency we should take every soldier in this country away from training and away from whatever they were doing to provide food for our people.
I am glad that this is only a two years Measure and that at the end of that time we will be able to survey the whole position again. If the Under-Secretary wants 20,000 children, he has to get more than the children living in and around potato-growing districts. Some will have to come from our big cities, and all of them can-

not be taken by buses to the fields every day. They will have to be taken to camps, just as they were during the war. Who are to supervise these camps? If the schools are in session, we shall not have the teachers we had during the war who did an excellent job of work in these camps. Of course, we had great fun; we enjoyed it just as much as the boys and girls, but that supervision force will not be there. Who are going to do it? The boys and girls do need help. I remember one instance in which a boy was taken from a job we thought bad for him. We did not send him back to the farm and when the farmer came to us, we told him he did not treat the boy as he ought to have treated him. That boy was safeguarded because he had with him supervisors interested in his welfare. If we want to get boys and girls from the big cities we must see that they have with them men and women who will take care of their welfare. I hope the points I have raised will be taken note of and that when this Bill comes to an end in two years' time some other form will be found rather than exemption which, I must stress again, will be borne mainly by children who really need education.

1.59 a.m.

Sir William Darling: It is nearly two in the morning and this is a very bitter hour for the Government. They are re-introducing with four or five Scottish Members child labour in Scotland. This is not being done by a Tory Government. A Tory Government put on the Statute Book the Children and Young Persons Act of 1937. It is the Children and Young Persons Act of 1937 which is being torn up tonight by a Socialist Government, and I am glad my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) has brought home in his inimitable way the poignancy of that fact. I say to the Scottish Labour Members, "You have played fast and loose with the destiny of your country." And four juvenile Members of the Scottish Labour Party are there to answer for the sins of the whole Labour Party. We are entitled to put the matter plainly and straightly before them.
At this hour, when the children whose liberty we are taking away, and whom we are robbing of their childhood, are in bed the members of the Government are pilfering their youth, and doing so in a


shame-faced fashion. The only good thing about the Under-Secretary and his two colleagues and the hon. Member for North Lanark (Miss Herbison) is that they are heartily and properly ashamed of themselves for the job they are doing. This Government came into office to plan a better and fuller life for the people of this country. Is this their planning? Is the employment of Scottish children the best that they can do? Let me tell you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that your official statistics show—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that I have no statistics.

Sir W. Darling: The official statistics show that there are 70,000 people unemployed in Scotland. Is this Government of all the talents unable to organise those 70,000 unemployed to pick "tatties"?

Miss Herbison: Can I ask the hon. Member whether he is in favour of the direction of labour, for that would be the only way you could force the unemployed to go into the potato fields?

Sir W. Darling: The hon. Lady asks me if I am in favour of the direction of labour. With that subtlety and charm of which she is a mistress, she imputes to me the necessary authority and power. I would ask her to re-address that question to me when those who put her and her friends into office now have formed sounder views on politics, and have placed me in the seat of authority, and I will then give her the answer. Tonight let her ask her friends and those who have placed them in power. Let her ask the working men and women, whose boys and girls are going to undertake this work, whether this is direction of labour.
This is a dark and humiliating hour, and it is right that the whole gang of the Scottish Labour Party, whom I have known for 25 years, should be in bed, like the children they intend to exploit next October. Let them pull the blankets over their heads and cower down, for indeed they are ashamed of themselves, and the whole Scottish Labour movement. When, at two in the morning, the young Under-Secretary, supported by the hon. Lady, herself almost in tears, asks the House of Commons to give a new lease to the exploitation of children, which we thought was a thing of the past—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

2.5 a.m.

Mr. William Ross: It may be just as well that we got those few minutes between the sitting down of the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) and my rising, because I had quite a few words to say that would probably be better left unsaid. The hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) said it was good and right that we on this side of the House should now face—I think his words were—"the harsh compulsion of necessity." I wonder if he remembers that when the children of Scotland went into the fields to pick potatoes in the days when he and the party opposite were more in control of matters, it was the harsh compulsion of necessity that was forcing the children to go. It was the need for the coppers, for there were at the time 400,000 unemployed in Scotland. Like any other person interested in education, I regretted that it should be necessary for the Government to introduce this Bill, and I am not going to applaud for the benefit it is doing education. Like every other schoolmaster in the country, I was glad when the school-leaving age was raised to 15 and equally glad when the Government set their face against the principle of exemption. The only consolation I can see in this piece of paper is the word "temporary" and like the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities I am sceptical, but for a different reason. I am sceptical also about the success of this Bill because the harsh compulsion of necessity does not force the children into the' fields now. There are such things as family allowances and the agricultural worker—and do not let us shut our eyes to the fact that it is his child who is going to do this picking—sets a high value on education.
This break in education by exemption is a very serious thing. Some people dismiss it and say it is only for a few days. That few days, though it affects only a few people in one class, affects the whole class. It may retard the child very seriously and for a considerably longer period than that. I feel that a mobile force—the Army—going round various places, might


have been able to tackle this problem, too. Then we have that other gallant body of people who want to save their country. We had 60 come down all the way from Scotland to take some of the rations the housewives of London need. Are they going to leave the children of Scotland to dig potatoes for them while they find the time to come down from Scotland to London? The housewives of Scotland who are truly representative of the Scottish people are not in London. They are looking after their houses and their families. They knew the queues when it was the men who were standing in them. The Secretary of State should make every effort to ensure that this Bill is really a temporary provision, and make every effort to ensure that whatever organisation is made for these children will be of a type which looks after their health to the fullest extent and will not interfere unduly with their education.

2.14 a.m.

Mr. T. Fraser: I will speak again with the leave of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. W. Ross) said we might have made full use of the Armed Forces—a mobile force—to move round the country. In making that suggestion he overlooked the fact that the Armed Forces have to be accommodated, and he also overlooked the fact that we have a vast acreage to be harvested in four weeks, so a mobile force would be no good. You cannot take up all the potatoes on a farm in one day.—[A HON. MEMBER: "Not even under Socialism?"] Not even under Socialism. The people who harvest the potatoes in any one county in Scotland will be in that county for the duration of the potato harvest. Therefore, the suggestion of using the Army as a mobile force is not one which would be likely to be practicable. Indeed, I would ask the House to believe that all the accommodation which is available at the present time is being used by the Armed Forces, and that the accommodation which has been used by the Armed Forces and at present is not being fully employed, will be fully employed in the main growing areas in providing accommodation for those very large forces of prisoners, Poles, and even civilians who are unemployed, who will be drafted into the main growing areas for the duration of the potato harvest. We shall make the fullest use of the accommo-

dation which might in other circumstances be used by the Armed Forces in the main growing areas.
In reply to the hon. Member for North Lanark (Miss Herbison), who is on my own side of the House, I would say that the split holidays are not a full answer when we need such a large labour force. She spoke of the contribution made by Glasgow during the war years. If one examines figures and takes the year 1945, we find that Glasgow's contribution represented only 10 per cent. of the eligible children of Glasgow. Is she suggesting that we should endeavour to split the holidays of a number of the children in Glasgow who might assist us? Does she think that we should split the holidays of all the Glasgow school children, or just the holidays of the eligible children? I am sure that if she goes into the difficulties she will find that it becomes very difficult indeed to secure that the requisite number of children will be made available by splitting the holidays. Then again, she said that I had referred to a period of two or three weeks, and she said that her school had four weeks. But even so, those children might well have their four weeks and, if that autumn holiday was from the middle of September to the middle of October, it might be found that in a particular year the bulk of the potato harvest was ready during the last two weeks in October and the first week of November. In that case, these children would not be available for the work unless we could in some way make them available by means of exemptions. I hope that wherever practicable the authorities, including the Glasgow authority, will provide for the splitting of the school holidays, and so make available a number of children to assist in this work with less interference to their education than, it might be argued, is the case if they are made available by way of exemptions.
Turning to the other side of the House, I must say that the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) talked the most awful nonsense, as he usually does, arguing that—

Sir W. Darling: There cannot be both nonsense and argument.

Mr. Fraser: There was no argument.

Sir W. Darling: The hon. Gentleman said "argument."

Mr. Fraser: There was no argument. The hon. Member talked the most awful


nonsense. He said we were reintroducing child labour in Scotland.
He said we were tearing up the Tory Party's Act of 1937. Is that true? They have been employed every year since 1937. If we did not have this Bill it would be the first year in the history of this country when it was not possible for the children to help in the harvest. Whereas hitherto, children of 12 years of age or over could assist, now under the povisions of this Bill, only children over 13 years of age can assist.

Sir W. Darling: What an advance.

Mr. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman thinks it is not an improvement, none at all. I should have thought it was a considerable improvement, because only quite recently the vast majority of these children were leaving at 14 and going into permanent employment, not employment for only three or four weeks. He went on to contend that this was direction—nothing short of compulsion of labour Again, of course, he could not adduce any argument to support that silly contention. The right hon. and gallant Member 'for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) also made the mistake of describing this as being nothing more nor less than the compulsion of labour. When he was challenged he sought to wriggle out of it by saying that the alternative for this was the compulsion of labour. But we are not using the alternative. We are using this method. He said that he appreciated that we were facing up to the realities of the situation and, of course, he was going to support us. He thought it was illusory to suggest that we might get some mechanical employment to raise potatoes in 1949 and 1950, and so save ourselves employing these children, but he must know that now we have harvest machines that are doing the job—not to perfection —but they are doing the job, and there is no reason to believe that no progress will be made in the course of the next two years. In any case, it is a breathing space. If, after two years, we find that we are still unable to have the potato acreage we need in Scotland without getting some assistance from the school population, then it will he the responsibility of the Government to come back to this House and ask for fresh powers. I think it is fair that in asking for such powers as these and asking that the children should be made available for this job,

we should limit the period of the Bill, and if it continues to be necessary an obligation should be on the Government of the day to come forward to get fresh powers from Parliament. These arguments can be continued in the Committee upstairs.

Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox: Will the Minister explain how harvesting machines will save any labour?

Mr. Fraser: I should have thought that was obvious.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section r of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Yeovil, a copy of which Order was presented on 3rd June, be approved."—[Mr. Ede.]

2.24 a.m.

Colonel Crosthwaitc-Eyre: Before this order is approved, I would like to ask the Home Secretary whether in this case a poll was taken; and if a poll was taken how many people were entitled to vote; how many people did, in fact, vote; and of those people who did vote, how many voted "aye" and how many voted "no" and whether, in view of those figures that he must have with him he is satisfied that that poll did, in fact, represent local opinion?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: May we take these various Motions together, because there is a number of points to be raised?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beawnont): They have to be considered separately.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Perhaps then, I may reserve my remarks.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): There are no statistics on this occasion because, as a matter of fact, after the public meeting had been held, it decided in favour of Sunday cinemas, and no poll was demanded by the defeated party; and, therefore, the information as to how


opinion in the poll was divided is not available. They decided to save the expense of going to a poll.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Yeovil, a copy of which Order was presented on 3rd June, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Market Ear-borough, a copy of which Order was presented on 3rd June, be approved."—[Mr.Ede.]

Motion made, and Question proposed:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 2932, to the Borough of Pontefract, a copy of which Order was presented on 3rd June, be approved."—[Mr. Ede.]

2.26 a.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: On this Motion, may I ask the Home Secretary whether the opinion of the Churches has been consulted about this order concerning Sunday cinemas at Peterborough?

Mr. Ede: It is not Peterborough.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Oh, it is not. I beg your pardon.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The noble Lord has got to the wrong town.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Pontefract, a copy of which Order was presented on 3rd June, be approved.

Motion made, and Question proposed:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the City of Peterborough, a copy of which Order was presented on 3rd June, be approved."—[Mr. Ede.]

2.27 a.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I would like to ask the Home Secretary if the Churches have been consulted in the city of Peterborough as regards this Motion. The right hon. Gentleman has not told the House anything about the opinion of the

Churches on this issue of Sunday cinemas. Peterborough is a cathedral city. It has a bishop and an assistant bishop, and a number of deans and canons.

Mr. Ede: One dean.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: One dean, and a number of canons. One would have thought the House might have been informed as to what the opinion of the Church movement was in the city of Peterborough, whether it was proper and right that cinemas should be held upon Sundays. In addition to that, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is the policy of the Government that Motion after Motion should be passed allowing the opening on Sundays of cinemas which, for the most part, take American films. We are short of dollars, and I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is somewhat worried by the dollar supply.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that this is an occasion on which to go into the question of dollars.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: With respect, why is it the case that on Sundays in these towns and cities of England there should be repeatedly shown two feature films imported from the United States upon which dollars are expended?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It may be perfectly true what the noble Lord says, but it has nothing to do with the Notion before the House.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: With very great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if these cinemas are open upon Sundays, they are used to show films which we all know to be, for the most part, American films.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We do not know; but if it was so, the noble Lord must not dispute my Ruling. I have ruled that the question of American films and dollars is not in Order on this Motion.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Then may I ask the Home Secretary to look into the propriety of opening cinemas in towns and cities of England upon Sundays which might offend against public taste, offend against the general policy of the Churches, and use up American dollars quite unnecessarily.

2.30 a.m.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I wish to ask exactly what it is that the Home Secretary is putting before us. I am surprised that a Resolution such as this should be moved at this time of night. My noble Friend has spoken on behalf of the Church of England. I speak as a Nonconformist, and I say quite frankly that this type of Motion does fill many Nonconformists with a considerable amount of perturbation. To put before the House this type of Motion at 2.30 in the morning is an abuse of Parliament and to put it before the House with the kind of explanation that has been put before us tonight—a nod of the head from the Home Secretary—is really an insult to our intelligence. I would like to know exactly on what grounds the Home Secretary is asking us to support this Motion, of what it consists, and what it is he is putting before us. I would ask if he has consulted Church of England and Nonconformist opinion. We are entitled to have much more explanation. It is a very much more serious matter than one would think. I would ask the Home Secretary to pay the House the compliment of giving it a little more information on these matters than he appears to be prepared to give at present

2.33 a.m.

Sir William Darling: I have remained these past two hours for the Scottish Debate, and would now associate myself with the Noble Lord and the hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) in this matter of the desecration of the Sabbath, as we call it in Scotland, which is not a wholly Scottish matter, but an English matter as well. There have been views expressed with some authority on the Church of England—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is quite out of Order He is now discussing the Act of Parliament under which these Orders issue. We can discuss only the machinery of the Order as empowered under the Act.

Sir W. Darling: I am one of those people who take a little time to arrive at the point. Under your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I have arrived at the point, and I express myself in agreement with the noble Lord and the hon. and learned Member for Wirral in this matter of the extension of Sunday cinematograph entertainment as an undesirable

one, whether in Peterborough or any other English cities or boroughs, which, as you see, are listed at some length, and which I cannot mention in these circumstances—nor shall I mention other boroughs—but the opportunity of speaking about the city of Peterborough on these matters is.one which, with your permission, I am entitled to take. So far as Sunday cinematograph attendances are concerned, I would say that from the experience of Peterborough which I have, they are neither widely demanded nor thought to be necessary. Peterborough has many other attractions on a Sunday. It has its great cathedral, and other attractions, and I want to say, as a Scotsman, that the views and opinions expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) are neither narrow nor limited. They are shared with expressions of good will in all parts of this island, and, as a Scottish Member I support most wholeheartedly those views.

2.36 a.m.

Mr. Ede: I welcome this opportunity of explaining this order. Might I say to hon. Members opposite that, if they desire to have these orders explained, I will dog so in moving them. I have been here for the whole of the evening for the mere purpose of participating in this Debate should I be called upon to do so. Previously, I had sat here all the evening, and then merely nodded my head six times, which seems to me to be rather a sad end to a happy day.
Peterborough is a county town of the most remarkable administrative county in England—the Soke of Peterborough. It is also a place associated in English history with Hereward the Wake. It is also remarkable for the fact that it produced the largest majority of all in favour of having cinmas open on Sundays. Such of the members of the deanery and chapter of the cathedral of Peterborough as are electors, had the opportunity of attending the meeting and of participating in the poll if they so desired. They had' the right of citizens just as my fellow Noncomformists had, and I might add that I am so sound a Nonconformist that I regard the vote of a bishop as something equal to the vote of a dissenting minister. I might get what is commonly called a. "raspberry" if I questioned the dean and chapter and the Noncomformist


ministers of that city as to whether they voted and what their views were. My duty is to carry out an Act of Parliament, and that I will do; but that does not impose on me the power to inquire as to whether ecclesiastical dignitaries behave as ordinary citizens. I have my suspicions, but far be it from me to place my suspicions before the House of Commons.
A public meeting was held and the decision was in favour of the proposal. Those who objected to the decision had to find a hundred signatories for a poll. With great diligence they searehed the purlieus of the cathedral. They searehed well—

Sir W. Darling: They searehed in the cellars?

Mr. Ede: They did not go into the underground cellars. Purlieus are not cellars. They found 103 electors to sign the petition. A poll was held on 28th April, 1947, and there were 7,102 votes in favour of the proposal and 1,796 against, giving a majority in favour of 5,306. That has been certified to me by the mayor of the city, as the returning officer in this case, and that being so, I have decided to make and submit the order to the House. I suggest that a majority of that kind in a place where both the Church of England and Nonconformism are very strong—and I have no doubt some members of the Church of England community and members of the various Nonconformist bodies voted on both sides—my reading of the reports of the meetings showed that some Church of England clergy were in support and some were not, the same as Nonconformists—

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: What was the total of the electorate in this case?

Mr. Ede: If I had known the hon. and learned Gentleman wanted that, I could have told him. There is in the Vote Office today a record showing the total electorate of every Parliamentary Division in the country, and I think he could get some idea from that.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Will the Home Secretary accept from me that the electorate is something like 59,000?

Mr. Ede: I should hardly think that is so in the case of the city of Peterborough. I am not dealing with the Soke,

but with the city. I know the total population is under 60,000, so there can hardly be 59,000 electors. I do happen to know that, because Peterborough always gets a straight deal with regard to local legislation because it contains more than half the population of the Soke. In these circumstances, I have no other responsibility than to submit the order to the House, and to suggest that if democracy counts for anything, one cannot take account of the electors who did not turn up.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section r of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the City of Peterborough, a copy of which Order was presented on 3rd June, be approved.

Motion made, and Question proposed:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Wokingham, a copy of which Order was presented on 3rd June, be approved.''—[Mr. Ede.]

2.42 a.m.

Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox: As the borough of Wokingham adjoins my constituency, will the Home Secretary explain what happened in this case?

Mr. Ede: The people of Wokingham behaved in the same way as the people of the borough of Yeovil. They decided to save both their money and time by not having a poll.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Wokingham, a copy of which Order was presented on 3rd June be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section r of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Kettering, a copy of which Order was presented on 3rd June, be approved."—[Mr. Ede.]

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Hannan].

Adjourned accordingly at Sixteen Minutes to Three o'Clocks a.m.